Point Defiance Bypass Project

Environmental Assessment

Prepared for:		

U.S. Department of Transportation		

Federal Railroad Administration

Prepared by:		

For more information you can: 

 Call the WSDOT Rail Office at (360) 705-7900 

 Write to the WSDOT Rail Office at WSDOT Rail Office, P.O. Box 47407 Olympia, WA 

98504-7407 

 Fax your comments to (360) 705-6821 

 E-mail your comments to rail@wsdot.wa.gov 

Title VI Notice to Public

It is the Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT) policy to assure that no 

person shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin or sex, as provided by Title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be 

otherwise discriminated against under any of its federally funded programs and activities. Any 

person who believes his/her Title VI protection has been violated may file a complaint with 

WSDOT's Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO). For Title VI complaint forms and advice, please 

contact OEO’s Title VI Coordinators, George Laue at (509) 324-6018 or Jonte' Sulton at (360) 

705-7082. 

Persons with disabilities may request this information be prepared and supplied in alternate 

forms by calling the WSDOT ADA Accommodations Hotline collect at (206) 389-2839. 

Persons with vision or hearing impairments may access the WA State Telecommunications 

Relay Service at TT 1-800-833-6388, Tele-Braille at 1-800-833-6385, or voice at 1-800-833-

6384, and ask to be connected to (360) 705-7097. 

Point Defiance Bypass Project

Environmental Assessment

Submitted pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 

(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) 

Prepared for:		

U.S. Department of Transportation		

Federal Railroad Administration

Prepared by:		

Washington State Department of Transportation

February 22, 2013 

Date of Approval Megan White, P.E. 

Director, Environmental Services Office 

Washington State Department of Transportation 

Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment		 Page	i	

Table of Contents 

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................1‐1

1.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................1‐1

1.2 Project Area Description ....................................................................................................................1‐1

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ....................................................................................................................................2‐1

2.1 Purpose of the Project........................................................................................................................2‐1

2.2 Need for the Project............................................................................................................................2‐1

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................................................3‐1

3.1 No Build Alternative............................................................................................................................3‐1

3.2 Build Alternative..................................................................................................................................3‐2

3.2.1 Construct New Track Adjacent to the Existing Main Line ............................................................... 3‐2

3.2.2 Reconstruct and Rehabilitate the Existing Main Line...................................................................... 3‐4

3.2.3 Improvements at Grade Crossings.................................................................................................. 3‐4

3.2.4 Tacoma Amtrak Station Relocation................................................................................................. 3‐4

3.2.5 Operational Changes....................................................................................................................... 3‐6

3.3 Laws, Regulations, and Permits........................................................................................................3‐6

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...............................................................4‐1

4.1 Air Quality .............................................................................................................................................4‐1

4.1.1 Study Area and Methodology – Air Quality..................................................................................... 4‐1

4.1.2 Affected Environment – Air Quality ................................................................................................ 4‐2

4.1.3 Environmental Consequences – Air Quality .................................................................................... 4‐2

4.1.4 Minimization Measures – Air Quality.............................................................................................. 4‐3

4.2 Noise and Vibration ............................................................................................................................4‐4

4.2.1 Study Area and Methodology – Noise and Vibration...................................................................... 4‐4

4.2.2 Affected Environment – Noise and Vibration.................................................................................. 4‐6

4.2.3 Environmental Consequences – Noise and Vibration ..................................................................... 4‐9
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	ii	 Environmental	Assessment	

4.2.4 Minimization Measures – Noise and Vibration ............................................................................. 4‐11

4.3 Transportation .................................................................................................................................. 4‐11

4.3.1 Study Area and Methodology – Transportation............................................................................ 4‐11

4.3.2 Affected Environment – Transportation ....................................................................................... 4‐12

4.3.3 Environmental Consequences – Transportation ........................................................................... 4‐14

4.3.4 Minimization Measures – Transportation..................................................................................... 4‐18

4.4 Geology and Soils.............................................................................................................................. 4‐18

4.4.1 Study Area and Methodology – Geology and Soils ....................................................................... 4‐18

4.4.2 Affected Environment – Geology and Soils................................................................................... 4‐19

4.4.3 Environmental Consequences – Geology and Soils....................................................................... 4‐19

4.4.4 Minimization Measures – Geology and Soils................................................................................. 4‐20

4.5 Water Resources............................................................................................................................... 4‐20

4.5.1 Study Area and Methodology – Water Resources ........................................................................ 4‐20

4.5.2 Affected Environment – Water Resources.................................................................................... 4‐21

4.5.3 Environmental Consequences – Water Resources........................................................................ 4‐23

4.5.4 Minimization Measures – Water Resources.................................................................................. 4‐23

4.6 Wetlands............................................................................................................................................ 4‐23

4.6.1 Study Area and Methodology – Wetlands .................................................................................... 4‐23

4.6.2 Affected Environment – Wetlands................................................................................................ 4‐24

4.6.3 Environmental Consequences – Wetlands.................................................................................... 4‐24

4.6.4 Minimization Measures – Wetlands.............................................................................................. 4‐25

4.7 Fish, Vegetation, and Wildlife ........................................................................................................ 4‐25

4.7.1 Study Area and Methodology – Fish, Vegetation, and Wildlife..................................................... 4‐25

4.7.2 Affected Environment – Fish, Vegetation, and Wildlife ................................................................ 4‐25

4.7.3 Environmental Consequences – Fish, Vegetation, and Wildlife.................................................... 4‐27

4.7.4 Minimization Measures – Fish, Vegetation, and Wildlife.............................................................. 4‐27
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment		 Page	iii	

4.8 Hazardous Materials........................................................................................................................ 4‐28

4.8.1 Study Area and Methodology – Hazardous Materials................................................................... 4‐28

4.8.2 Affected Environment – Hazardous Materials .............................................................................. 4‐28

4.8.3 Environmental Consequences – Hazardous Materials.................................................................. 4‐29

4.8.4 Minimization Measures – Hazardous Materials............................................................................ 4‐31

4.9 Visual Quality .................................................................................................................................... 4‐31

4.9.1 Study Area and Methodology – Visual Quality.............................................................................. 4‐31

4.9.2 Affected Environment – Visual Quality ......................................................................................... 4‐32

4.9.3 Environmental Consequences – Visual Quality ............................................................................. 4‐32

4.9.4 Minimization Measures – Visual Quality....................................................................................... 4‐33

4.10 Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................... 4‐35

4.10.1 Study Area and Methodology – Cultural Resources...................................................................... 4‐35

4.10.2 Affected Environment – Cultural Resources ................................................................................. 4‐35

4.10.3 Environmental Consequences – Cultural Resources..................................................................... 4‐35

4.10.4 Minimization Measures – Cultural Resources............................................................................... 4‐36

4.11 Section 4(f) Resources................................................................................................................. 4‐36

4.11.1 Study Area and Methodology – Section 4(f) Resources................................................................ 4‐36

4.11.2 Affected Environment – Section 4(f) Resources............................................................................ 4‐37

4.11.3 Environmental Consequences – Section 4(f) Resources ............................................................... 4‐37

4.11.4 Minimization Measures – Section 4(f) Resources......................................................................... 4‐37

4.12 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice............................................................................ 4‐37

4.12.1 Study Area and Methodology – Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice............................... 4‐37

4.12.2 Affected Environment – Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice .......................................... 4‐38

4.12.3 Environmental Consequences – Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice .............................. 4‐44

4.12.4 Minimization Measures – Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice........................................ 4‐47

4.13 Land Use......................................................................................................................................... 4‐47
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	iv	 Environmental	Assessment	

4.13.1 Study Area and Methodology – Land Use ..................................................................................... 4‐47

4.13.2 Affected Environment – Land Use................................................................................................. 4‐47

4.13.3 Environmental Consequences – Land Use .................................................................................... 4‐48

4.13.4 Minimization Measures – Land Use .............................................................................................. 4‐49

4.14 Public Services, Utilities, and Safety......................................................................................... 4‐49

4.14.1 Study Area and Methodology – Public Services, Utilities, and Safety........................................... 4‐49

4.14.2 Affected Environment – Public Services, Utilities, and Safety....................................................... 4‐49

4.14.3 Environmental Consequences – Public Services, Utilities, and Safety .......................................... 4‐60

4.14.4 Minimization Measures – Public Services, Utilities, and Safety .................................................... 4‐61

4.15 Energy............................................................................................................................................. 4‐61

4.15.1 Study Area and Methodology – Energy......................................................................................... 4‐61

4.15.2 Affected Environment – Energy .................................................................................................... 4‐62

4.15.3 Environmental Consequences – Energy ........................................................................................ 4‐62

4.15.4 Minimization Measures – Energy.................................................................................................. 4‐63

4.16 Indirect and Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................ 4‐64

4.16.1 Indirect Effects............................................................................................................................... 4‐64

4.16.2 Cumulative Effects......................................................................................................................... 4‐66

5.0 COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION...........................................................................................................5‐1

5.1 Public Involvement..............................................................................................................................5‐1

5.2 Agency Coordination...........................................................................................................................5‐3

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ......................................................................................................................................6‐1

7.0 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................7‐1

8.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................8‐1
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment		 Page	v	

List of Tables 

Table Executive Summary‐1. Summary of Effects ....................................................................................... ix

Table Executive Summary‐2. Summary of Proposed Avoidance and Minimization

Measures ....................................................................................................................................... xii

Table 1. Laws and Related Permits for the Build Alternative	..................................................................................	3‐7

Table 2. FTA Noise Impact Criteria	...................................................................................................................................	4‐5

Table 3. Ground‐borne Vibration Impact Criteria	.......................................................................................................	4‐6

Table 4. Existing and Future Daily Rail Operations Along the Project Rail Line	...............................................	4‐16

Table 5. Year 2030 Intersections Improved by the Build Alternative	.................................................................	4‐17

Table 6. Year 2030 Intersections Experiencing a Decrease in LOS by the Build

Alternative	.............................................................................................................................................................	4‐17

Table 7. Geologic Critical Areas within the Study Area	...........................................................................................	4‐19

Table 8. Surface Waters within the Study Area	.........................................................................................................	4‐21

Table 9. Wetland Descriptions	........................................................................................................................................	4‐24

Table 10. Fish Habitat and Presence within the Study Area	..................................................................................	4‐26

Table 11. Hazardous Materials Sites of Concern within the Study Area	...........................................................	4‐28

Table 12. Key Viewpoints in the Study Area	...............................................................................................................	4‐32

Table 13. Population and Race/Ethnicity Statistics	..................................................................................................	4‐41

Table 14. Poverty Status	....................................................................................................................................................	4‐41

Table 15. Existing Emissions	.............................................................................................................................................	4‐62

Table 16. Alternatives Operation Comparison	...........................................................................................................	4‐63

Table 17: Transportation Related Projects – Current and Reasonably Foreseeable	.....................................	4‐67

Table 18: Recent Development Proposals in Project Area.....................................................................................	4‐71

Table 19. Summary of Public Involvement Activities	.................................................................................................	5‐1

Table 20. Summary of Advisory Team Meetings	.........................................................................................................	5‐4

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Project Location and Alternatives	..................................................................................................................	1‐3

Figure 2. Build Alternative Components	........................................................................................................................	3‐3

Figure 3. Photo of Existing Berkeley Street Southwest Grade Crossing  and

Illustration of Proposed Grade Crossing Improvement at Berkeley Street

Southwest	................................................................................................................................................................	3‐5

Figure 4. Noise and Vibration Monitoring Locations	.................................................................................................	4‐8

Figure 5. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections	...........................................	4‐12

Figure 6. At‐Grade Crossings and Station Locations	................................................................................................	4‐15

Figure 7. Wetland and Surface Water Resources	.....................................................................................................	4‐22

Figure 8. Hazardous Materials Sites of Concern–High Priority and Major Sites	.............................................	4‐30

Figure 9. Visual View of Tracks vs. Train	......................................................................................................................	4‐33

Figure 10. Key Viewpoints from Adjacent Properties in the Project Area........................................................	4‐34
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	vi	 Environmental	Assessment	

Figure 11. Tacoma and Lakewood Neighborhoods	..................................................................................................	4‐39

Figure 12. Minority Populations by Census Block	.....................................................................................................	4‐42

Figure 13. Poverty by Census Block	...............................................................................................................................	4‐43

Figure 14. Existing Land Uses –Incorporated Areas along the Point Defiance

Bypass Route	.........................................................................................................................................................	4‐48

Figure 15. Public Facilities in the Study Area (Panels 1‐10)	...................................................................................	4‐50

List of Appendices

Appendix A:  Alternatives Analysis

Appendix B:  Grade Separation Concept Evaluation

Appendix C:  Air Quality Discipline Report

Appendix D:  Air Quality Discipline Report Erratum

Appendix E:  Noise and Vibration Discipline Report

Appendix F:  Traffic and Transportation Discipline Report

Appendix G:  Railroad Crossing Traffic Effect Analysis at C and D Streets

Appendix H:  Geology and Soils Discipline Report

Appendix I:  Water Resources Discipline Report

Appendix J:  Wetlands Discipline Report

Appendix K:  Fish, Vegetation, and Wildlife Discipline Report

Appendix L:  Hazardous Materials Discipline Report

Appendix M:  Visual Quality Discipline Report

Appendix N:  Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice Discipline Report

Appendix O:  Land Use Discipline Report

Appendix P:  Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report

Appendix Q:  Energy Discipline Report

Appendix R:  Public Outreach Summary

Appendix S:  Agency Correspondence
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment		 Page	vii	

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is implementing a program of 

infrastructure improvement projects along the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC) also known as 

the PNWRC Improvement Program. To fund these projects, WSDOT applied and was selected for grant 

funding through the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail 

(HSIPR) Program. As part of the PNWRC Improvement Program, when combined with the other 

component projects, the Point Defiance Bypass route (the Project) would allow for two additional Amtrak 

Cascades service round trips between Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon with improved 

reliability and reduced travel time. This Project would also support Amtrak’s longer-distance Pacific 

Northwest passenger rail service, the Coast Starlight. The PNWRC Improvement Program is made up of 

approximately 17 component projects. One such component project included in the PNWRC 

Improvement Program is the Point Defiance Bypass route, which would address deficiencies in the 

existing rail operations around Point Defiance between Tacoma and Nisqually in Washington State. This 

Project is the subject of this Environmental Assessment (EA). 

To support the obligation of grant funds for the PNWRC improvement program, FRA and WSDOT 

issued a Tier-1 Programmatic EA analyzing the potential impacts of the projects comprising the PNWRC 

Program. Based on the analysis of potential impacts and proposed measures to avoid, minimize and 

mitigate potential impacts in the Programmatic EA, FRA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) in November 2010. Both the Programmatic EA and the November FONSI anticipated a series of 

Tier-2 or project-level environmental documents to study the potential impacts of the component projects 

at a higher level of detail prior to making a decision on implementing a specific component project. 

This project-level EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA implementing regulations (40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508), the FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 

28550, May 26, 1999), and the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (WAC 197-11). FRA 

is the lead agency under NEPA and WSDOT is the lead agency under SEPA. FHWA and Sound Transit 

are cooperating agencies under NEPA. 

The purpose of the Project is to provide more frequent and reliable high-speed intercity passenger rail 

service along the PNWRC between Tacoma and Nisqually. In conformity with the decisions under the 

Tier 1 Programmatic EA, the PNWRC Improvement Program has reduced the overall environmental 

impacts of providing improved passenger rail service with the use of an existing transportation corridor 

and associated infrastructure, rather than creating a new corridor. 

The Project is needed to address the deficiencies in the existing rail alignment around Point Defiance. The 

existing alignment (Puget Sound route), shared by freight and passenger rail traffic, is near capacity and is 

therefore unable to accommodate additional high-speed intercity passenger rail service without substantial 

improvements. In addition, the existing alignment has physical and operational constraints that adversely 

affect both passenger and freight train scheduling and reliability. 

As part of an alternatives analysis, FRA and WSDOT identified and evaluated several alternatives, 

including improvements to the Point Defiance Bypass route and No Build Alternative. During the course 

of the alternatives analysis, only the Point Defiance Bypass route and existing Puget Sound route were 

determined to be reasonable alternatives. Therefore, the subsequent analysis of alternatives was focused 

on the remaining reasonable alternatives: the Point Defiance Bypass route (Build Alternative) and the 

Puget Sound route (No Build Alternative). 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	viii	 Environmental	Assessment	

The No Build Alternative would only include the routine maintenance and repair activities necessary to 

keep the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe (BNSF)-owned line Puget Sound route operational. Under the No 

Build Alternative there are no other planned capital projects along the Point Defiance Bypass route, so the 

existing track conditions would remain. The Sound Transit Project, establishing commuter service to the 

City of Lakewood on the Point Defiance Bypass route, is considered as part of the existing condition for 

purposes of this analysis. 

The Build Alternative would provide for the rerouting of intercity passenger trains from the Puget Sound 

route that runs along the southern Puget Sound shoreline to an existing rail corridor (the Point Defiance 

Bypass route) that runs along the west side of Interstate 5 (I-5) between Tacoma and Nisqually. The 

Project would include railroad track and support facility improvements, and relocation of the Tacoma 

Amtrak Station to Freighthouse Square in Tacoma. A total of 12 Amtrak Cascade and two Coast Starlight 

service train trips would use the Point Defiance Bypass route. Components of the Project include: 

 Construction of a new second track adjacent to Sound Transit’s existing main line between South 

Tacoma and Lakewood. 

 Installation of new rails, ties, and ballast on Sound Transit’s existing track between Lakewood and 

Nisqually. 

 Improvements at the connection to BNSF’s main line near Nisqually. 

 Safety improvements at some existing at-grade crossings within the project corridor.1

 Relocation of the existing Tacoma Amtrak Station from Puyallup Avenue to the Tacoma Dome 

Station at Freighthouse Square (the Tacoma Dome Station) in Tacoma. Property acquisition for 

additional parking west or north of Freighthouse Square is anticipated. 

FRA and WSDOT evaluated the anticipated environmental effects of the Build and No Build alternatives, 

which are summarized in Table Executive Summary-1. Proposed avoidance, minimization measures, and 

best management practices (BMPs) (Table Executive Summary-2) will be integrated into the Project and 

will reduce or eliminate anticipated environmental effects. 

 

1

 The Point Defiance Bypass route is also referred to as the corridor or project corridor. 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 

Environmental	Assessment	 

Table Executive Summary‐1. Summary of EffectsResource Area

Anticipated Environmental EffectsNo Build Alternative Build Alternative

Air Quality No Change.  In conformity with the Clean Air Act requ

 Temporary air quality effects during cons

Noise and Vibration  Continued noise from train-mounted horns on freight trains. 

 Continued noise and vibration from gaps in track ends. 

 Moderate noise effects (increase) predic Vibration effects (increase) predicted at t Temporary noise and vibration effects du

Transportation  Passenger rail service on the Puget Sound route would 

continue to be affected by freight operations and have a limited ability to expand service. 

 Traffic volumes, intersection delay and queues at some 

intersections would be projected to increase by 2030. 

 No effect to Sounder or freight trains dur

will be rerouted onto other available Tacand WSDOT will coordinate with TR and 

 Improved passenger connections and co

and Sounder, Tacoma Link light rail, and 

 Increase in daily train trips on the Point D Decrease in passenger train schedule de Vehicle queue length would increase at s

increased frequency/duration of road blo

 Vehicle queue length would decrease at 

to signal improvements. 

 Level of Service would improve at four in

four intersections. 

 Sidewalk improvement at North Thorne L

Street Southwest, and Barksdale Avenu

 No effect to bus transit.  Minor vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle tra

construction. 

 Dwell time of the Coast Starlight train at 

event at the Tacoma Dome would result LOS D at most affected intersections. 

Geology and Soils No Change.  No long-term effects to geologic hazard a

 Temporary disturbance of soils and sedim

activities. 

Water Resources No Change.  No effects to surface waters through cha

quality. 

 No effect to floodplains or shoreline area No effects to critical aquifer recharge or w No effects during construction. 

Wetlands No Change.  No fill or removal activities would take pla

buffer areas. 

 No effects during construction. 
February	2013	 Po

Page	x	 	 

Table Executive Summary‐1. Summary of EffectsResource Area

Anticipated Environmental EffectsNo Build Alternative Build Alternative

Fish, Vegetation, and Wildlife No Change.  Removal of 24 acres of maintained vege

mixed forest, and 1 acre of scattered tre

 Vegetation removal would not affect terre Effects from construction activities to terr

discountable due to urban setting. 

 No effects to aquatic species during cons

work. 

Hazardous Materials No Change.  No increase in transport of hazardous ma

 Construction activities may encounter co

Visual Quality No Change.  Project elements would be similar to exis

in most locations. 

 Decreased privacy for occupants of build

due to additional trains. 

 Visual quality experienced by individuals 

system will change from a view of the Puenvironment. 

Cultural Resources No Change.  No adverse effect. Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice No Change.  No displacements or relocations would o

 Temporary noise and vibration effects du

near railroad. 

 Vibration effects during operation to prop Minor effects to public access and safety 

trains. 

 Upgrades to intersections would improve 

those locations. 

 Minority or low-income (environmental ju

temporarily affected by noise and vibrati

 Minority or low-income (environmental ju

adversely affected by Project operation. 

Land Use No Change.  Consistent with adopted land use policie

 Occupied areas in railroad right-of-way u

not be displaced. 

 No displacement of other existing land us

planned development. 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 

Environmental	Assessment	 

Table Executive Summary‐1. Summary of EffectsResource Area

Anticipated Environmental EffectsNo Build Alternative Build Alternative

Public Services, Utilities, and Safety No Change.  Short-term effect to public safety during i

traffic delays. 

 Increased train trips result in more freque

bys, and may delay emergency service vto medical centers, government offices a

 No effect to utilities.  Long-term improvement to safety at seve

crossings. 

 No displacement of public services. 

Energy No Change.  Reduction in rail traffic delays, resulting i

consumption and greenhouse gas emiss

 Shorter rail route would allow for more en

Indirect Effects No Change.  No indirect effects to air quality, noise an

vegetation, geology and soils, wetlands, services and utilities, or energy would oc

 Possible beneficial indirect effect from lim

Freighthouse Square to hazardous matesocioeconomic and environmental justic

 Redevelopment could result in an indirec

additional vehicle traffic. 

Cumulative Effect No Change.  No cumulative effects to air quality; geolo

wetlands; fish and wildlife, or cultural resthe Project would not affect these resour

 No significant cumulative effects to noise 

vegetation; hazardous materials; visual qenvironmental justice; land use; public ssafety; and energy would occur. 
February	2013	 Po

Page	xii	 	 

Table Executive Summary‐2. Summary of Avoidance, Minimization Measures, and BMPsResource Area Proposed MeasuresAir Quality  Spray water and operate water trucks on haul roads. 

 Cover and/or wet materials onsite and during transport, or provide adequate freeboard.  Provide wheel washers to remove PM that vehicles would otherwise carry offsite.  Remove mud and windblown dust deposited on paved roadways.  Maintain construction equipment with required pollution-control devices. 

Noise and Vibration  Ensure all construction activities comply with local noise regulations, including no nighttime work unless a variance is obtained. 

 Use natural and artificial barriers to shield against construction noise (e.g. baffles or stockpiles of construction materials).  Strategically place stationary equipment to reduce effects to noise-sensitive receivers.  Equip each internal combustion engine with a manufacturer-recommended muffler.  Use vibratory or hydraulic insertions for pile driving at locations determined during final design.  Use wayside horns at at-grade crossings to limit the sounding of train horns and reduce the area exposed to train warning sounds Use of track treatments (such as resiliently supported ties, or ballast mats) to reduce the vibration transmitted to the ground to leve

impact criterion. 

Transportation  Implement coordination framework during design and construction to ensure freight delivery meets customer needs during constru

 Develop a traffic control plan during construction.  Coordinate with Tacoma Rail during construction to maintain freight movement.  WSDOT will coordinate with local jurisdictions regarding the construction schedule, construction areas, and detour routes during P

minimize community disruption including for events such as the US Open. 

 Implementation of a detour plan that may include static signs identifying detour routes and/or dynamic message signs that identify 

train blockage at Freighthouse Square.. FRA and WSDOT would provide additional modeling detail and design at the C and D Sthe Final Design process. 

Geology and Soils  Prepare and follow a Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan to implement proper erosion control and surface wate

 Pave or permanently restore disturbed areas as soon as possible.  Design temporary excavation slopes to prevent surface sloughing and shallow landsliding.  Design all fill and pavement areas to drain away from construction areas and prevent ponding of water and softening of subgrade  Limit cut slopes or use retaining walls, and include drainage facilities designed for anticipated water flows. 

Water Resources  Implement minimization BMP measures during construction. 

 Implement a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (CSWPPP). 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 

Environmental	Assessment	 

Table Executive Summary‐2. Summary of Avoidance, Minimization Measures, and BMPsResource Area Proposed MeasuresWetlands  Clearly mark clearing limits and protect with construction fencing. 

 Use various sediment control BMPs to remove sediment prior to any stormwater runoff leaving the site.  Stabilize exposed soils to prevent erosion (i.e hydroseeding, straw wattles, etc.).  Place a temporary erosion control blanket immediately after seeding, fertilizing, and mulching.  Handle and dispose of all on-site pollutants, including waste materials and demolition debris, in a manner that does not cause con Establish on-track vehicle/machinery maintenance and fueling locations away from aquatic resources.  Ensure any on-site fuel storage would have secondary containment equal to 150 percent of storage capacity.  Remove all waste oils and machinery fluids by a maintenance vehicle when they are generated. No waste oils or fluids would be s Conduct application of chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides in a manner and at application rates that would not result in los

runoff. 

 Handle highly turbid or contaminated dewatering water separately from stormwater; do not allow it to enter local drainage systems

Fish, Vegetation, and Wildlife 

 Confine construction activities to the minimum area necessary.  Develop and implement a TESC Plan and CSWPPP for clearing, vegetation removal, grading, ditching, filling, embankment compa

BMPs in the plans would be used to control sediments from ground-disturbing activities. 

 For construction activities that occur within 200 feet of surface water or wetland habitat as identified by the Project biologist, use B

material, such as railroad ballast or other material, is sidecast, and to control and prevent sediments from entering aquatic system

 Minimize removal of native vegetation to the greatest extent possible.  Reseed areas using a native seed mix. 

Hazardous Materials  Perform site-specific hazardous material investigations when and where necessary. 

 Prepare a project-specific hazardous material management plans.  Prepare a CSWPPP.  Prepare a TESC Plan, including dust control measures.  Prepare a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCCP).  Coordinate with Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) during acquisition and construction for work completed within the en

covenant at Freighthouse Square. 

Visual Quality  Maintain existing vegetation at the edge of the railroad right-of-way to screen the rail line at locations determined during final desig

 Enhance vegetative buffers and screening where the rail line is adjacent to residential and institutional properties at locations dete

Cultural Resources  Develop an inadvertent discovery plan using standard WSDOT template. Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 

 See project measures for air quality, noise and vibration, transportation, hazardous materials, and public services, utilities, and saf

Land Use  No measures are proposed. Public Services, Utilities, and Safety 

 Coordinate and communicate with public service providers to identify ways to minimize delays.  Coordinate with utility owners to determine conflicts and determine a suitable resolution to avoid or minimize disruption.  Post construction schedules near affected crossings and provide the information to residents and businesses in the area.  Initiate the Operation Lifesaver training on track safety for community members.  Continue to develop and implement security procedures to reduce the likelihood of rail trespass. 
February	2013	 Po

Page	xiv	 	 

Table Executive Summary‐2. Summary of Avoidance, Minimization Measures, and BMPsResource Area Proposed MeasuresEnergy  Limit equipment idling. 

 Locate staging areas near work sites.  Schedule the delivery of materials during off-peak hours to allow trucks to travel to the site with less congestion and at fuel-efficien

Indirect Effects  No measures are proposed. Cumulative Effects  No measures are proposed. 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	1‐1	

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.1 Introduction

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is implementing a program of 

infrastructure improvement projects along the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor (PNWRC) also known as 

the PNWRC Improvement Program. To fund these projects, WSDOT applied for and was selected for 

grant funding through the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail 

(HSIPR) Program. As part of the PNWRC Improvement Program, when combined with the other 

component projects, the Point Defiance Bypass route (the Project) would allow for two additional Amtrak 

Cascades service round trips between Seattle, Washington, and Portland, Oregon with improved 

reliability and reduced travel time. This Project would also support Amtrak’s longer-distance Pacific 

Northwest passenger rail service, the Coast Starlight. The PNWRC Improvement Program is made up of 

approximately 17 component projects. One such component project included in the PNWRC 

Improvement Program is the proposed Point Defiance Bypass route, which is proposed to respond to 

deficiencies in the existing rail operations around Point Defiance between Tacoma and Nisqually in 

Washington State. This Project is the subject of this Environmental Assessment (EA). 

To support the obligation of grant funds for the PNWRC improvement program, FRA and WSDOT 

issued a Tier-1 Programmatic EA analyzing the potential impacts of the projects comprising the PNWRC 

Program. Based on the analysis of potential impacts and proposed measures to avoid, minimize and 

mitigate potential impacts in the Programmatic EA, FRA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) in November 2010. Both the Programmatic EA and the November FONSI anticipated a series of 

Tier-2 or project-level environmental documents to study the potential impacts of the component projects 

at a higher level of detail prior to making a decision on implementing a specific component project. 

This project-level EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA implementing regulation (40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508), the FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 

28550, May 26, 1999). WSDOT will use FRA’s decision documentation and other supporting 

documentation to satisfy the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (WAC 197-11). 

1.2 Project Area Description

The Project is located in Pierce County (Figure 1) along an existing approximately 20-mile rail corridor 

between Tacoma and Nisqually. The northern limit of the Project is TR Junction near the I-5 overcrossing 

of the Puyallup River and East Bay Street in Tacoma. The southern limit of the Project is at Nisqually 

Junction where Nisqually Road crosses the Nisqually River. 

The Point Defiance Bypass route is an existing railroad corridor that generally parallels and is west of the 

I-5 transportation corridor and is located within both incorporated and unincorporated areas of Pierce 

County. Approximately two-thirds of the Project length is located within or adjacent to the incorporated 

cities of Tacoma, Lakewood, and DuPont. The remainder lies within unincorporated area of Pierce 

County, the majority of which is occupied by US Joint Base Lewis McChord (JBLM) and Camp Murray 

National Guard military complexes. 

The Point Defiance Bypass route topography is of low relief at the northern end and rises 200 to 400 feet 

at the southern end. The route is located in a highly developed region surrounded by commercial and 

residential properties, military bases, and roadways. The Point Defiance Bypass route includes rail tracks 

supported by ties and a gravel base with managed (sprayed, mowed) vegetation generally occurring at or 

near the edge of the railroad right-of-way. 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	1‐2	 Environmental	Assessment	

The Point Defiance Bypass route is owned primarily by Sound Transit, and Tacoma Rail with BNSF 

owning the southernmost mile of the route. Both freight and commuter trains operate along the Point 

Defiance Bypass route, including freight operators Tacoma Rail, BNSF, and Sound Transit’s Sounder

commuter rail service. 

Within this corridor,2

 Tacoma Rail provides service to its customers on its rail line in Frederickson and 

other points south of Tacoma. The average freight train traffic between TR Junction and East “D” Street 

is two trains per day to as few as two trains per week on other portions of the Point Defiance Bypass 

route. BNSF freight operations are limited to service operating between 100th Street in Lakewood and 

Nisqually, serving JBLM and the town of Roy via a branch line that extends south from 108th Street in 

Lakewood. Sound Transit’s Sounder commuter rail service currently leaves the BNSF main line at TR 

Junction and continues to Freighthouse Square on the Tacoma Rail line. Sound Transit currently operates 

18 trains between Freighthouse Square and Seattle each weekday, and also offers occasional special event 

trains, usually on weekends, to serve sporting and other events in Seattle and Tacoma. Sounder service to 

Lakewood Station began in October 2012. 

 

 

2

 The Point Defiance Bypass route is also referred to as the corridor or project corridor. 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	1‐3	

Figure 1. Project Location and Alternatives

Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	2‐1	

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

2.1 Purpose of the Project

As described above, the Point Defiance Bypass route is part of the larger PNWRC. Within Washington 

State, the vision for the PNWRC is to “...improve intercity passenger rail service by reducing travel times 

and achieving greater schedule reliability in order to accommodate growing intercity travel demand...” 

(WSDOT 2009). 

The purpose of the Project is to provide more frequent and reliable high-speed intercity passenger rail 

service along the PNWRC between Tacoma and Nisqually. In conformity with the decisions under the 

Tier 1 Programmatic EA, the PNWRC Improvement Program has reduced the overall environmental 

effects of providing improved passenger rail service with the use of an existing transportation corridor 

and associated infrastructure, rather than creating a new corridor. 

2.2 Need for the Project

The Project is needed to address the deficiencies in the existing rail alignment around Point Defiance. The 

existing alignment (Puget Sound route), shared by freight and passenger rail traffic, is near capacity and is 

therefore unable to accommodate additional high-speed intercity passenger rail service without substantial 

improvements. In addition, the existing alignment has physical and operational constraints that adversely 

affect both passenger train scheduling and reliability. 

Improving intercity passenger rail service in the study area and meeting the Project needs would be 

accomplished by: 

 Enhanced Frequency: Increasing Amtrak Cascades round-trips from four to six by 2017 to meet 

projected service demands. 

 Improved Reliability: Reducing scheduling conflicts with freight trains that often result in delays, 

and by minimizing or avoiding operational delays (e.g., drawbridge openings) and weather-related 

delays (e.g., mudslides), and improving on-time performance from 68 percent to 88 percent. 

 Enhanced Efficiency: Enhancing the efficient movement of people by decreasing trip times by 10 

minutes, and reducing the amount of time passenger trains spend yielding to freight movements. 

 Improved Safety: Constructing at-grade crossings with upgraded safety features, including wayside 

horns, median barriers, advance warning signals, and traffic signal improvements. 

Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	3‐1	

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

As part of an alternatives analysis process, FRA and WSDOT evaluated three build alternatives: the 

Point Defiance Bypass route, the Shoreline Alternative, and the Greenfield Alternative to identify the 

range of reasonable alternatives to carry forward for detailed analysis. A brief description of each build 

alternative follows: 

 Point Defiance Bypass route includes railroad track and support facility improvements, and the 

relocation of Amtrak’s Tacoma Station. Additional detail is provided below in Section 3.2. 

 The Shoreline Alternative would make improvements along the 26 mile-long Puget Sound route 

between Nisqually and Tacoma. This alternative consists of adding eight miles of new track and realigning 15 miles of existing track. 

 The Greenfield Alternative includes six routes (Lakewood South Route, Spanaway Route, Lakewood 

to Tacoma Tunnel Route, Fredrickson Route, Rainer Route, and I-5 Median Route). Although each 

route has minor differences each would construct a new alignment and reconstruct an existing route. 

WSDOT eliminated two of the alternatives (the Shoreline Alternative, and the Greenfield Alternative) 

from further study. Although either alternative could meet the Project’s purpose and need, each was 

determined to be impracticable and unfeasible due to technical constraints, high construction costs, and 

significant environmental effects. Because of these adverse factors, neither alternative was carried 

forward into this EA for further analysis. Refer to Appendix A for the technical evaluation of the 

Shoreline and Greenfield Alternatives. 

Modifications to the proposed project suggested during the public involvement process for this EA 

included adding a Cascades station within the Lakewood or DuPont city limits, and constructing one or 

several grade-separated crossings. However, consistent with the trip time element of the Project’s 

purposes and need and in order to meet performance standards set by WSDOT, no additional stops are 

proposed for this Project. However, construction of the Point Defiance Bypass route would not preclude 

the future construction of a station or stations within the study area if a feasibility study or demand 

warranted an additional station. 

Grade separations were also evaluated for further consideration. The evaluation of grade separations 

included in Appendix B revealed that current and projected future traffic volumes do not warrant the 

construction of new grade-separated crossings. The analysis determined that the construction and 

operation of grade-separated crossings would result in significant environmental impacts to the 

surrounding community (e.g., noise, property acquisitions, visual impacts from retaining walls, and the 

increased perception of community isolation, particularly in Tillicum). While not included in this Project 

for the reasons described in Appendix B, construction of the Build Alternative would not preclude the 

future construction of grade-separated crossings within the Project Area. 

This EA evaluates the Point Defiance Bypass route (the Build Alternative), and the No Build Alternative. 

Figure 1 shows the northern and southern project limits and the existing station locations in the study 

area. 

3.1 No Build Alternative

If the Project is not built (the No Build Alternative), Amtrak’s Cascades and Coast Starlight passenger 

train service would continue to use the existing BNSF rail line (Puget Sound route) that runs along the 

southern Puget Sound shoreline and Point Defiance (Figure 1). The No Build Alternative includes only 

the minor maintenance and repair activities necessary to keep the existing BNSF line operational and no 

increase in Amtrak service. Similarly, beyond the improvements already made by Sound Transit to 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	3‐2	 Environmental	Assessment	

establish service between Lakewood and Tacoma, there are no other planned capital projects along the 

Point Defiance Bypass route, so the existing track conditions would remain. 

The existing congestion on the Puget Sound route would continue to constrain passenger operation. 

Future passenger trains would experience an increase in congestion as the number of trains on the Puget 

Sound route increases. Amtrak would not use the Point Defiance Bypass route. 

With the No Build Alternative, it would be expected that as freight traffic increases, congestion would 

adversely affect Amtrak service reliability, and the travel time for Amtrak trains between Seattle and 

Portland would increase. Weather-related cancellations and delays due to mudslides would continue to 

affect passenger service. 

Along the Point Defiance Bypass route, Tacoma Rail and BNSF freight services would continue. Tacoma 

Rail operates as many as two trains per day on some portions of the Point Defiance Bypass route to as few 

as two trains per week on other portions of the Point Defiance Bypass route. BNSF operates intermittent 

freight trains on the Point Defiance Bypass route to serve military transportation needs at JBLM. Freight 

trains do not travel through the entire length of the Point Defiance Bypass route and would need the 

permission of both the Surface Transportation Board and Sound Transit to travel on the new grade 

constructed between East “D” Street and the Tacoma Avenue Overpass. There is currently no plan to 

open this section of the Point Defiance Bypass route to freight trains. The at-grade crossings at Clover 

Creek Drive Southwest, North Thorne Lane Southwest, Berkeley Street Southwest, 41st Division Drive, 

and Barksdale Avenue Southwest would not be upgraded to include modern safety controls. 

Sound Transit’s Sounder commuter passenger trains became operational in October 2012 between the 

Tacoma Dome Station at Freighthouse Square in Tacoma and Sound Transit’s Lakewood Station (on the 

Point Defiance Bypass route). Once fully functional, Sound Transit would operate as many as 18 Sounder

trains per day between Freighthouse Square and the Lakewood Station. For this EA, Sounder service is 

considered as the existing corridor condition. 

3.2 Build Alternative

The Project consists of railroad track and support facility improvements to facilitate the rerouting of 

Amtrak’s intercity passenger rail to the Point Defiance Bypass route, and the relocation of Amtrak’s 

Tacoma Station. The following sections detail specific components of the Build Alternative. 

3.2.1 Construct New Track Adjacent to the Existing Main Line

A new 3.5-mile track adjacent to the existing main line would be constructed from South 66th Street (rail 

MP 6.9) in Tacoma to between Bridgeport Way Southwest (rail MP 10.4) and Clover Creek Drive 

Southwest (rail MP 10.9) in Lakewood (Figure 2). This new section of track would be constructed parallel 

to and generally 15-20 feet west of the existing track center. The new track would consist of continuous 

welded rail and ballast mats where appropriate to reduce noise and vibration from passing trains. 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	3‐3	

Figure 2. Build Alternative Components 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	3‐4	 Environmental	Assessment	

3.2.2 Reconstruct and Rehabilitate the Existing Main Line

Starting just southwest of Bridgeport Way Southwest (rail MP 10.4) in Lakewood, the existing track 

would be reconstructed to a location southeast of the I-5/Mounts Road Southwest interchange (rail MP 

19.8) at Nisqually Junction (Figure 2). This would include: 

 Removal of the existing track and minor regrading of the existing subgrade to provide a slightly 

wider, regraded, and compacted stable surface on which to construct a new track. 

 Installation of new crushed rock ballast, concrete ties (except under the at-grade crossings), and 

continuous welded rail. 

 Extension of the wing walls at the rail bridge south of the Mounts Road interchange with northbound 

I-5. 

 Relocation/protection of utilities. 

 Installation of additional railroad train control signal system components. 

3.2.3 Improvements at Grade Crossings

Several grade crossings (Figure 2) would be improved with wayside horns, gates, traffic signals and 

signage, sidewalks, median separators, and warning devices. These crossings include Clover Creek Drive 

Southwest, North Thorne Lane Southwest, Berkeley Street Southwest, 41st Division Drive and Barksdale 

Avenue. Figure 3 illustrates a before and after of the grade crossing improvements at Berkeley Street 

Southwest. These improvements are typical of those planned for the other grade crossings in the area. 

3.2.4 Tacoma Amtrak Station Relocation		

The existing Tacoma Amtrak Station would be relocated from its Puyallup Avenue location to the 

Tacoma Dome Station at Freighthouse Square, at 430 East 25th Street in Tacoma. The Freighthouse 

Square location is positioned to act as a regional transportation center serving the surrounding 

communities including DuPont, Lakewood, and Tacoma, allowing shorter connections between Amtrak 

passenger rail and other transit services provided at the Tacoma Dome Station. In addition, Freighthouse 

Square is already configured to accommodate Sound Transit commuter rail passenger volumes, and has 

convenient freeway access, making it a suitable station location for the Project. 

Relocation to the Tacoma Dome Station would require: 

 Reconstruction of a portion of the existing Freighthouse Square building to create a passenger 

ticketing and waiting area, and baggage handling space (approximately 4,800 square feet). 

Improvements would be ADA compliant. 

 Reconstruction and extension of the existing commuter rail platform to meet intercity passenger rail 

needs. The Coast Starlight is 1,235 feet long and would require construction of an additional platform 

at the parking lot between East “C” and East “D” Street as well as the existing platform at 

Freighthouse Square. 

 Additional off-street parking, to be located near Freighthouse Square station on identified properties 

that are available either for purchase or lease by WSDOT, and made available for exclusive use by 

Amtrak passengers. 

 Improving traffic signals to accommodate pedestrian crossings and traffic flow to and from 

Freighthouse Square. 

 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	3‐5	

Figure 3. Photo of Existing Berkeley Street Southwest Grade Crossing 

and Illustration of Proposed Grade Crossing Improvement at Berkeley Street Southwest 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	3‐6	 Environmental	Assessment	

3.2.5 Operational Changes		

Operational changes refer to the type, frequency, and speed of rail traffic that can be expected on a daily 

basis once the Project is completed. 

Amtrak’s existing Cascades and Coast Starlight passenger train service would be rerouted from the Puget 

Sound route to the Point Defiance Bypass route. The Project would also provide for the addition of 

Amtrak’s Cascades service by increasing the number of round trips provided from four to six, or a total of 

12 Cascades service train trips. Amtrak Coast Starlight would also travel on the Point Defiance Bypass 

route for a total of two service train trips. Train speeds along the route would vary from 30 mph for 

Sounder trains to an operating speed up to 79 mph for Amtrak trains on this section of the PNWRC. 

There would be no change to the operation of freight trains on the Point Defiance Bypass route under the 

Build Alternative. Tacoma Rail and BNSF would continue to operate as many as two trains per day on 

some portions of the Point Defiance Bypass route to as few as two trains per week on other portions of 

the Point Defiance Bypass route. BNSF would continue to operate intermittent freight trains on the Point 

Defiance Bypass route to serve military transportation needs at JBLM. The Project would not enable 

freight traffic to move beyond the East “D” Street and Tacoma Avenue Overpass. 

3.3 Laws, Regulations, and Permits

Federal, state, and local laws and regulations authorize agencies to issue permits, review plans, or provide 

consultation regarding potential project impacts. Table 1 identifies the pertinent federal, state, and local 

permits and consultation required for the Build Alternative. Regulations presented in Table 1 are 

organized by the primary issuing agency.
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 

Environmental	Assessment	 

Table 1. Laws and Related Permits for the Build AlternativeApplicable Law or Order

Primary ResponsibleAgency(ies); Citation Description and Requirements

Federal Permits/ApprovalsNEPA of 1969 FRA; 42 United States Code (USC) § 4321 

NEPA requires preparation of environmental documeeffects to resources to ensure that all branches of govconsideration to the environment prior to undertaking that significantly affects the environment. 

Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act 

Council on Environmental Quality; 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §§ 1500–1508 

Provides regulations for Implementing NEPA procedu

FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts FRA; 64 FR 28550, May 26, 1999 

Provides FRA’s procedures for the assessment of envagency actions and for the preparation and processinassessments. 

Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 402 Ecology; 33 USC § 1344 

Projects disturbing one acre or more of land during coNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPBest Management Practices (BMPs) be in place durin

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106; Executive Order 11593 Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment; Archeological Resource Protection 

FRAFRA, Washington Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), City of Tacoma, City of Lakewood, and City of DuPont; 16 USC § 470 et seq.; Tacoma Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 13.07; Lakewood Municipal Code (LMC) Chapter 14.62; DuPont Municipal Code (DMC) Chapter 25.80 

Requires federal agencies to take into account the effeligible/may be eligible for the National Register of Hi

Executive Order 13175 Consultation/ Coordination with Tribes FRA 

Requires responsible agency(ies) to follow specific prpolicymaking criteria, consultation, and coordination bactions that affect “Indian tribes” as defined by the Or

Executive Order 12898 Environmental Justice FRA; 59 FR 7629, Feb. 11, 1994 

Requires that federal agencies ensure there are no dadverse effects on minority and low-income populatioactions. 

Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency 

FRA; 65 FR 50121 

Requires federal agencies to examine existing serviceservices, and develop and implement a system to ensEnglish Proficiency (LEP) applicants and beneficiaries
February	2013	 Po

Page	3‐8	 

Table 1. Laws and Related Permits for the Build AlternativeApplicable Law or Order

Primary ResponsibleAgency(ies); Citation Description and Requirements

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) U.S. Department of Justice Public Law 101-336; FRA Prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunit

disabilities. 

State Permits/ApprovalsResource Conservation and Recovery Act Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1976 

Ecology; 40 CFR Parts 239-282 WAC Chapter 173-303 

Governs the disposal of solid waste and hazardous wEcology are required for disturbances to sites with a r

Asbestos demolition/renovation notification Ecology; 40 CFR Part 61.145 

An asbestos demolition/renovation notification form ma structure is demolished, or renovation of an existing asbestos. 

State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) WSDOT WAC Chapter 197-11 Similar to NEPA, it is state policy that requires state a

consider the likely environmental consequences of a or denying the proposal. 

Local Permits/ApprovalsNoise Variance City of Lakewood; LMC Chapter 8.36.010 

A noise variance is required for construction activities allowed daytime working hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekends. 

Right-of-Way/Street Opening Permit City of Lakewood; LMC Chapter 12A.07 

A permit is required to use the City of Lakewood rightconstruction and/or to tie new roads or improvements Lakewood right-of-way. 

Shoreline Substantial Development Permit – Exemption 

Pierce County; Pierce County Code Sections 20.76.030.B.2 and 18.40 

Clover Creek is a managed shoreline within Pierce Coadjacent to Clover Creek is likely exempt per WAC 17review and approval by Pierce County. 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐1	

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section provides a concise description of the potential impacts to the resources within the study area 

that could result from the No Build and Build Alternatives. For each resource area, this EA provides a 

brief description of the study area and methodologies used to identify potential effects, a brief description 

of the affected environment that currently exists in the study area, a brief analysis of the potential 

environmental impacts (both adverse and beneficial) that result from the No Build and Build Alternatives, 

and where appropriate identifies measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts. Because the project 

includes minimization measures, the Project would not result in significant impacts. 

Detailed technical analyses for most resource areas are provided in discipline reports, which are appended 

to this EA and are incorporated herein by reference. For resource areas that were not present or adjacent 

to the study area, no effects would occur and no additional analysis was completed in the discipline 

reports or this EA. These include: 

 coastal zone management; 

 use of other natural resources, such as water, minerals, or timber; and, 

 recreational opportunities. 

4.1 Air Quality

4.1.1 Study Area and Methodology – Air Quality

The study areas for air quality are based on the EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

pollutants of concern for transportation-related projects, and each is described below. 

For carbon monoxide (CO), the areas of concern are highly localized and typically occur close to 

congested roadway intersections. Therefore, the study area for CO is determined by identifying those 

intersections which have traffic flows that would be most affected by the Project. Modeling is then 

performed to determine future CO concentrations at those area roadway intersections resulting from 

project vehicle assignments (often referred to as a hot-spot analysis). For other pollutants, such as 

nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC), particulate matter – 10 microns or less 

(PM10), and particulate matter – 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) are a concern on a wider geographic scale, and 

the study area for these pollutants, therefore, consists of the entire Seattle/Tacoma metropolitan area. The 

Project is not subject to federal Transportation Conformity regulations, but is covered under General 

Conformity rules and Project NAAQS air pollutant emissions were evaluated for compliance with the 

General Conformity requirements. 

For the General Conformity analysis, emissions of nonattainment and maintenance area pollutants (CO, 

PM10 and PM2.5 [including PM2.5 precursors sulfur dioxide (SO2), NOx, and VOCs]) from construction 

and locomotive operations on the Project rail alignment were considered on a wider geographic scale. 

Therefore, the study area for these pollutants consists of the entire Seattle/Tacoma metropolitan area. 

In addition to the NAAQS air pollutants, EPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from 

human-made sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., trains, airplanes, 

etc.), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries). Mobile Source 

Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air Act. The MSATs are 

compounds emitted from highway vehicles and other mobile transportation sources, including 

locomotives. Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel 

evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐2	 Environmental	Assessment	

combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or 

from impurities in oil or gasoline. Conformity requirements for MSAT emissions have not been set by the 

EPA but a qualitative MSAT analysis was conducted within the Project limits using the 2009 FHWA 

interim guidance. 

4.1.2 Affected Environment – Air Quality

The project corridor traverses areas that are designated as maintenance areas for 

PM10, CO, and O3; and as nonattainment for PM2.5. Nonattainment areas are 

areas that currently exceed NAAQS standards for specific pollutants. Most of 

Pierce County was designated a nonattainment area for fine particle pollution 

(PM2.5) in 2009 because fine particle pollution levels too frequently exceeded 

the national limit. The study area is in attainment with the other NAAQS criteria pollutants - nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). Additional information regarding affected 

environment is in Appendix C (page 17). 

4.1.3 Environmental Consequences – Air Quality

4.1.3.1 No Build Alternative – Air Quality

Under the No Build Alternative, passenger locomotive emissions per mile traveled would remain the 

same as they are today, and would be expected to decrease over time with gradual improvements in 

emissions controls in the Amtrak fleet. Amtrak and freight locomotive operations and emissions would 

continue to occur on the Puget Sound route. 

The level of congestion at roadway intersections in the vicinity of the Project would not change under the 

No Build Alternative. Continued implementation of vehicle emission reduction programs and trends 

under the No Build Alternative, including stricter vehicle emission standards for new cars, and gradual 

replacement of older, more polluting vehicles with newer, cleaner cars, are expected to continue to reduce 

vehicle emissions. 

No Project-related construction emissions would occur under the No Build Alternative. 

The No Build Alternative would not be expected to cause or contribute to any new violations of the 

NAAQS, would not increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of the NAAQS, and 

would not delay the attainment of the NAAQS for PM2.5. 

4.1.3.2 Build Alternative – Air Quality

Construction Effects

Construction activities temporarily generate PM10 and PM2.5 (mostly dust) and small amounts of other 

pollutants associated with earthwork and demolition activities. PM from construction activities would be 

visible if uncontrolled. Mud and particulates from trucks may also be visible if construction trucks are 

routed through residential neighborhoods. Minimization measures would be in place to control dust and 

prevent deposition of mud on paved streets and are described in Section 4.1.4 below. To further minimize 

the potential for PM impacts, burning would not be allowed during construction. 

Heavy trucks and construction equipment powered by gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO and 

NOx in exhaust emissions. These emissions would be temporary and limited to the immediate area 

surrounding the construction site. The temporary use of heavy trucks and construction equipment is not 

Maintenance areas are those 

areas that meet NAAQS and 

implement a maintenance 

plan to prevent the area from 

being reclassified to nonattainment.
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐3	

expected to cause exceedance of the NAAQS. The use of diesel construction equipment would result in a 

temporary increase in MSAT emissions in the study area. 

In addition, temporary odors may be detected by people near asphalt paving operations but would 

decrease with increased distance from the source. Additional information regarding construction effects is 

detailed in Appendix C (page 28). 

Operational Effects

The Build Alternative emissions, due to annual combined construction and locomotive operation 

emissions were determined to be below the de minimis levels listed in the General Conformity rules, and 

therefore, implementation of the Project would be in conformity with CAA requirements. 

Locomotive emissions resulting from increased Amtrak Cascades service frequency would be offset to a 

degree by the reduction in track miles traveled on the Build Alternative alignment compared to the 

existing alignment. The location of emissions would change on a regional basis with locomotive-related 

pollutants being emitted in the proposed Build Alternative corridor rather than on the existing Puget 

Sound alignment. 

The Build Alternative is not expected to cause exceedance of the CO NAAQS at roadway intersections as 

a result of project operation. The CO hot-spot analysis shows that both the 1-hour and 8-hour averaged 

CO concentrations would be below the NAAQS in the existing year (2010), the year of opening (2017), 

and the planning horizon year (2040). 

The Build Alternative is not predicted to increase regional highway vehicle miles traveled and thus not 

affect regional CO, O3, and PM levels. MSAT levels are predicted to decrease significantly in the future 

due to federally mandated vehicle emissions programs. 

Based on these findings, the Build Alternative would not be expected to result in significant air quality 

impacts. Additional information regarding operational effects is detailed in Appendix C (page 29) and 

Appendix D (page 5).

4.1.4 Minimization Measures – Air Quality

Although the Build Alternative would not have a significant effect on air quality requiring mitigation, 

effects associated with construction activities would be reduced by the following minimization measures: 

 Spraying water and operating water trucks on haul roads to reduce dust and PM10 emissions. 

 Covering and/or wetting materials onsite and during transport, or providing adequate freeboard (space 

from the top of the material to the top of the vehicle) to reduce PM10 emissions. 

 Providing wheel washers to remove PM that vehicles would otherwise carry offsite. 

 Removing PM (mud and windblown dust) deposited on paved roadways. 

 Properly maintaining construction equipment with required pollution-control devices. 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐4	 Environmental	Assessment	

4.2 Noise and Vibration

4.2.1 Study Area and Methodology – Noise and Vibration

The study area for the noise and vibration analysis is the project corridor, including the station relocation 

at Freighthouse Square. Noise and vibration effects were evaluated at sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet 

of the track centerline. 

4.2.1.1 Noise

The existing and future operational noise levels were evaluated 

based on the methodology outlined in the Transit Noise and 

Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006). Project-related noise 

impact thresholds are identified in Table 2. Shown in column 1 

of Table 2 is the existing noise exposure. The remaining columns 

show the level of effect (moderate effect or severe effect) for 

future noise exposure. The future noise exposure is the 

combination of the existing noise exposure and the additional 

noise exposure caused by the Project. For example, if the existing 

noise exposure is 53 dBA for a residential land use (Category 1 

or 2), a moderate effect would occur at 55 dBA and a severe 

effect would occur at 60 dBA. 

Based on the methodology, existing noise exposure levels were initially measured at selected monitoring 

sites (Figure 4). From Table 2, noise impact thresholds were then identified for each noise monitoring 

site. Future noise levels were then modeled using the FTA noise spreadsheet model (FTA, 2006). The 

future operational noise levels were then compared to the existing noise levels to determine if the project 

would result in impacts at sensitive receptors. If changes to noise levels did occur they were evaluated to 

determine if they would exceed the identified FTA noise impact thresholds (Table 2). In general, the 

higher the level of existing noise, the less potential exists for the project to cause noise impacts. 

Sensitive Receptors are land uses where 

noise has the potential to disrupt the 

activities that take place there. The noise 

impact criteria for sensitive receptors 

depend on land use, designated as 

Category 1, Category 2 or Category 3. 

Category 1 includes uses where quiet is 

an essential element in their intended 

purpose, such as indoor concert halls or 

outdoor concert pavilions or National 

Historic Landmarks where outdoor 

interpretation routinely takes place. 

Category 2 includes residences and 

buildings where people sleep. Category 

3 includes institutional land uses with 

primarily daytime and evening use such 

as schools, places of worship and 

libraries.
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐5	

Table 2. FTA Noise Impact Criteria

Existing Noise

Exposure Leq or

Ldn1

Project Noise Exposure Impact Thresholds: Ldn or Leq1

(all noise levels in dBA2)

Category 1 or 2 Sites Category 3 Sites

Moderate Effect Severe Effect Moderate Effect Severe Effect

<43 Existing +10 Existing +15 Existing +15 Existing +20 

43-44 52 58 57 63 

45 52 58 57 63 

46-47 53 59 58 64 

48 53 59 58 64 

49-50 54 59 59 64 

51 54 60 59 65 

52-53 55 60 60 65 

54 55 61 50 66 

55 56 61 61 66 

56 56 62 61 67 

57-58 57 62 62 67 

59-60 58 63 63 68 

61-62 59 64 64 69 

63 60 65 65 70 

64 61 65 66 70 

65 61 66 66 71 

66 62 67 67 72 

67 63 67 68 72 

68 63 68 68 73 

69 64 69 70 74 

70 65 69 70 74 

71 66 70 71 75 

72-73 66 71 71 76 

74 66 72 71 77 

75 66 73 71 78 

76-77 66 74 71 79 

>77 66 75 71 80 

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006). 

1 Ldn is used for land uses where nighttime sensitivity is a factor; Daytime Leq is used for land uses involving only daytime activities. 2 dBA means A-weighted decibels. 

Category Definitions: 

Category 1: Buildings or parks where quiet is an essential element of their purpose. 

Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This includes residences, hospitals, and hotels where nighttime 

sensitivity is assumed to be of utmost importance. 

Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes schools, libraries, and churches.
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐6	 Environmental	Assessment	

4.2.1.2 Vibration

Vibration effects from train operations were assessed using the FTA vibration impact assessment 

procedures (FTA 2006). Estimates of ground-borne vibration are taken by monitoring select 

representative sites for 24-hours. Those baseline vibration measurements are then compared to the FTA 

vibration impact thresholds (Table 3) to determine potential effects. If the monitored vibration levels 

exceed the ground-borne vibration criteria thresholds, then measures are assessed to reduce potential 

vibration effects. With respect to the noise and vibration construction assessment, because the means and 

methods of construction will not be known until a contractor is selected; the analysis of construction noise 

and vibration was based on typical activities and equipment used for construction. 

As a reference for the vibration impact thresholds in (Table 3), the existing background building vibration 

usually ranges from 40-50 VdB, which is well below the range of human perception. Although the 

perceptibility threshold is about 65-70 VdB, human response (or the percent of people that would 

typically be annoyed) to vibration is usually not significant unless vibration levels exceed 70 VdB. A 

vibration level of 70 VdB is typical of the vibration experienced 50 feet from railroad tracks. 

Table 3. Ground‐borne Vibration Impact Criteria

Land Use Category

Ground‐borne Vibration Impact Levels

(VdB1 re: 1 micro‐inch/sec)

Frequent

Events2

Occasional

Events3

Infrequent

Events4

Category 1: Buildings where low existing vibration is essential for 

interior operations 65 VdB 65 VdB 65 VdB 

Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 

Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime use 75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 

1 VdB = vibration velocity units 

2 “Frequent Events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most rapid transit projects fall into this category. 

3 “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same sources per day. Most commuter trunk lines have this 

many operations 

4 “Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. This category includes most commuter rail branch 

lines. 

Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006) 

4.2.2 Affected Environment – Noise and Vibration

4.2.2.1 Noise

Noise monitoring was performed at 23 locations noted as “sensitive receptors” in the study area to 

determine baseline noise levels in relation to the current track operations and noise receivers typical of the 

study area (Figure 4). Long-term (24-hour) measurements were conducted at 19 of the 23 sites. These 

locations included residences and other buildings where people normally sleep. Short-term (15-minute) 

noise measurements were taken at the remaining four sites. These locations were representative of typical 

recreational, institutional, and commercial land uses with primarily daytime and evening activity. Current 

noise levels at the 19 residential receptors in the study corridor ranged from 54 to 75 A-weighted decibels 

(dBA). Noise levels at the four institutional receptors ranged from 49 dBA (Mountainview Memorial Park 

and Southgate Elementary School) to 69 dBA (Camp Murray) during short-term measurements (Table 2). 

Neighborhoods within the study area currently experience noise from train mounted horns on Tacoma 

Rail freight trains south of Bridgeport Way Southwest, and wayside horns at intersections from 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐7	

Freighthouse Square to Bridgeport Way Southwest.3 No corridor-specific noise measurements for 

existing wayside horns or train-mounted horns were available for this project.4

 Instead, modelled contour 

lines at the Bridgeport Way Southwest intersection (considered a typical intersection within the study 

area) were created to show the areas potentially affected by both wayside horn or train mounted horns. 

With the project, wayside horns would be located at the intersection and based on the modeling, the area 

affected by wayside noise would be limited to the vicinity of the intersection and noise levels would be as 

follows: 

 80 dBA Ldn noise levels would be experienced at up to 28 feet from the intersection for less than a 

distance of 300 feet along the tracks. 

 70 dBA Ldn noise levels would be experienced at up to 70 feet from the intersection over a distance of 

300 feet along the tracks. 

 60 dBA Ldn noise levels would be experienced at up to 190 feet from the intersection over a distance 

of 500 feet along the tracks. 

By way of illustration, based on the FRA horn blowing requirements at grade-crossings, train-mounted 

horns modeled at the intersection would generate noise along the tracks for several thousand feet as the 

trains approach the intersection, significantly greater than the few hundred feet for wayside horns. With 

train-mounted horns, 

 80 dBA Ldn noise levels would be experienced at up to 20 feet from the tracks over a distance of 

between 2,500 and 3,000 feet along the tracks. 

 70 dBA Ldn noise levels are experienced at up to 90 feet from the tracks over a distance of 3,000 feet 

along the tracks. 

 60 dBA Ldn noise levels are experienced at up to 400 feet from the tracks over a distance of 3,700 feet 

along the tracks. 

4.2.2.2 Vibration

Vibration levels were monitored for 24-hour periods at two sites representative of the land uses and 

buildings in the study area (Figure 4): one was the Arsenal/Museum building at Camp Murray 

(Site #CM2), and the other was at a residence along Kline Street Southwest (Site #3). The existing 

vibration levels at these locations were measured at 67 and 65 VdB, respectively.5

 

Additional information regarding affected environment for noise and vibration is detailed in Appendix E 

(page 31). 

 

3

 Wayside horns have been installed at intersections from Freighthouse Square to Bridgeport Way Southwest, such that noisier 

train-mounted horns need no longer be sounded for this section of the Point Defiance Bypass route. Sounder train noise has been

addressed during environmental review and construction. Sound Transit conducted a noise analysis in conformance with FTA’s 

methodology and requirements and no noise impacts requiring mitigation were identified. (USDOT/ST 2002). 4

 No corridor-specific noise measurements for wayside horns or train-mounted horns were conducted as no Cascades trains were 

running along the Point Defiance Bypass route at the time of the study. 

5

 The threshold of vibration perception for most humans is around 65-70 VdB; levels from 70-75 VdB are often noticeable but 

acceptable; and levels greater than 80 VdB are usually considered unacceptable (equivalent to a freight train going by at close

range). 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐8	 Environmental	Assessment	

Figure 4. Noise and Vibration Monitoring Locations 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐9	

4.2.3 Environmental Consequences – Noise and Vibration

4.2.3.1 No Build Alternative – Noise and Vibration

The existing noise and vibration conditions in the project corridor would remain unchanged under the No 

Build Alternative. 

4.2.3.2 Build Alternative – Noise and Vibration

Construction Effects – Noise and Vibration

Noise

Construction noise would be intermittent, occurring at various locations and would depend on the type, 

amount, and location of construction activities. Construction noise would be temporary and would vary 

widely both spatially and temporally over the course of the Project’s construction. The maximum noise 

levels of construction equipment would be similar to the typical maximum construction equipment noise, 

which range from 71 to 98 dBA at 50 feet. Assuming a maximum construction noise level of 98 dBA at 

50 feet, Sites 1, TRM, 3, 6, 6M, 7, 11, 15, 16, 16N, and 16S (see Figure 4) have the potential to 

experience temporary daytime construction noise levels equal to or above the FTA one hour Leq

construction noise impact criteria for residential properties of 90 dBA (FTA, 2006). Because various 

pieces of equipment would be turned off, idling, or operating at less than full power at any given time and 

because construction machinery is typically used to complete short-term tasks at any given location, 

average daytime noise levels would be less than the maximum noise levels indicated above. In addition, 

based on standard distance attenuation, construction noise levels experienced at far away sensitive 

receptors would decrease at a rate of 6 to 8 dBA per doubling of distance from a source,6

 significantly 

lower than maximum construction noise emission levels. Given that construction noise is intermittent and 

there is a reduction in perceptible sound for sensitive receptors farther away from the construction 

activities, noise effects to sensitive receptors are not anticipated to be significant. 

Vibration

Common vibration-producing equipment used during aboveground construction activities includes 

jackhammers, pavement breakers, bulldozers, backhoes, and ballast tampers. Typical vibration-producing 

equipment would produce vibration levels in the range of 66 to 112 VdB at a distance of 25 feet. 

Vibration levels from vibratory rollers were estimated to be the most substantial source of vibration 

during normal construction activities. Based on the limit for an acceptable level of infrequent groundborne vibration to residential properties of 80 VdB, construction-related vibration effects are predicted at 

Sites 3 and 11. Site 3 represents approximately five residences, and Site 11 represents approximately 

11 residences located 25-50 feet from the nearest track. For Site 3 and 11 residents, construction related 

vibration would be noticeable during construction but because of the linear nature of rail construction, 

activities would be temporary and occur infrequently. As such, vibration effects would not be significant. 

Additional information regarding construction effects is detailed in Appendix E (page 50). 

 

6

 For example, a sound that is 50 dBA at 50 feet from the source of the sound would be 42 dBA 100 feet (assumes a decrease of 8 

dBA), and 34 dBA at 200 feet from the sound source. Since a decrease of 10 dB in noise represents half the perceived noise to the 

human ear, the difference in the perceived sound at 50 and 100 feet would be almost half. 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐10	 Environmental	Assessment	

Operational Effects – Noise and Vibration

Noise

Noise exposure would be generated by several sources, including passing trains, trains going over special 

track work (such as joints or frogs), and warning equipment (either wayside horns or on-train horns). 

Moderate noise impacts are predicted at two sensitive receptors for the Project: Site 6M and Site 16N 

(Figure 4). Site 6M is located near the at-grade railway crossing on 108th Street Southwest, just east of the 

intersection of 108th Street Southwest and Lakewood Drive Southwest in the City of Lakewood, 

Washington. Site 16N is located near the at-grade railway crossing on Bridgeport Way Southwest, just 

north of the intersection of Bridgeport Way Southwest and Pacific Highway Southwest in the City of 

Lakewood. Each sensitive receptor represents six residences. The increased noise levels at these sensitive 

receptors would be caused by new warning devices at signalized at-grade crossings located near the 

noise-sensitive land uses. Warning devices such as wayside horns (which are proposed as part of the 

Project) must be heard to be effective and therefore volumes cannot be reduced; however the use of 

wayside horns by both Amtrak and freight trains would replace train mounted horns with quieter wayside 

mounted horns that would reduce this particular source of noise. The noise effects from their use would 

be localized (as compared to on-train horns) and below the maximum noise level of 92 dBA at 100 feet, 

as set by FRA. Also, there would be no noise effects during common sleeping hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) 

due to the proposed Amtrak Cascades and Coast Starlight schedule (trains will run after 7 a.m. and until 

10 p.m). As noise effects to sensitive receptors are below the FTA noise impact threshold for severe 

effects and wayside train horn volumes are below the maximum noise level allowed by FRA for trainmounted horns, noise effects to sensitive receptors would not be significant. 

Vibration

Vibration effects above the FTA vibration impact criteria of 80 VdB for infrequent events are predicted to 

occur at two sensitive receptors: Site 3 (85 VdB) and Site 11 (82 VdB), representing 5 and 11 residences, 

respectively, located 25-50 feet from the nearest track (Figure 4). Site 3 is located at the south end of 

Kline Street Southwest, just north of the existing rail line in the City of Lakewood. Site 11 is located on 

the south side of Union Avenue Southwest, between Maple Street Southwest and Lake Street Southwest, 

just north of the existing rail line in the City of Lakewood. Increased vibration levels at these locations are 

a result of the small distance between the sites and the tracks. Additional impacts resulting from a 3 VdB 

or more increase over the existing vibration levels in the corridor shared with Sound Transit Sounder

service (Lakewood Station to TR Junction) are predicted at Sites 2 (72 VdB), 4 (66 VdB), 5 (70 VdB) and 

10 (66 VdB), but these would be below the FTA impact criteria of 80 VdB for infrequent events. Existing 

condition vibration monitoring was also performed at the Arsenal/Museum building at Camp Murray 

(Site CM2) and this site is not expected to experience vibration effects under the Build Alternative. 

In summary, the Project would have infrequent events as there would be less than 30 vibration events 

from the same source per day in the study area. This correlates to a FTA vibration impact criteria of 

80 VdB throughout the study area for Category 2 (residential) land uses, and 83 Vdb for Category 

3 (institutional) land uses7

 which would be exceeded at Sites 3 and 11. There would be no vibration 

effects during common sleeping hours due to the proposed Amtrak Cascades and Coast Starlight schedule 

(trains will run after 7 a.m. and until 10 p.m). Vibration levels to sensitive receptors would exceed the 

FTA vibration impact thresholds (80 VdB for Category 2 land uses, and 83 Vdb for Category 3 land 

uses). However, minimization measures described in Section 4.2.4 would reduce the vibration effects 

 

7

 Vibration levels of 80 VdB and 83 VdB would be noticeable to people (similar to a freight train passing by at close range) but

would not be severe enough to cause property damage. 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐11	

below FTA vibration impact thresholds. These measures will be further analyzed during final design. 

Therefore, vibration effects to sensitive receptors would not be significant. 

Additional information regarding operational effects is detailed in Appendix E (page 39). 

4.2.4 Minimization Measures – Noise and Vibration

Although the Build Alternative would not have a significant effect on noise or vibration sensitive 

receptors requiring mitigation, effects associated with construction and operational activities at sensitive 

receptors would be reduced by the following minimization measures: 

Construction Minimization Measures for Noise and Vibration 

 Ensure all construction activities comply with local noise regulations, including no nighttime work 

unless a variance is obtained. 

 Use artificial barriers (e.g. baffles, or stockpiles of construction materials) to shield against 

construction noise. 

 Strategically place stationary equipment, such as compressors and generators, to reduce effects to 

noise-sensitive receivers. 

 Equip each internal combustion engine with a manufacturer-recommended muffler. 

 Use vibratory or hydraulic insertions for pile driving, or use drilled shafts in place of pile driving at 

locations determined during final design. 

Operational Minimization Measures for Noise and Vibration 

 Use wayside horns at at-grade crossings to limit the sounding of on-train horns and reduce the area 

exposed to train warning sounds. 

 Vibration impacts at Sites 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 11 would be reduced through use of track treatments 

(such as resiliently supported ties, or ballast mats) to reduce the vibration transmitted to the ground. 

Sites 2, 4, 5, and 10 were measured below the FTA vibration impact criterion. For Sites 3 and 11, the 

use of track treatments would reduce the vibration effects to below the FTA vibration impact criterion 

of 80 VdB. 

4.3 Transportation

4.3.1 Study Area and Methodology – Transportation		

The study area includes the existing Point Defiance Bypass route between Nisqually Junction on the south 

and TR Junction in Tacoma on the north, including all at-grade rail crossings (Figure 6). The Puget Sound 

route and the station relocation at Freighthouse Square are also included in the study area. 

Roadway traffic analysis involved assessing traffic volumes and 

turning movement data at each at-grade crossing intersection and 

adjacent intersections affected by the additional train crossings. 

Traffic was then evaluated to determine how the road system 

would work today and how the roads would operate in 2030 for 

each alternative.8

 To determine roadway conditions, current and 

 

8

Although 2040 is now the planning horizon for the Puget Sound Regional Council, the appropriate year to use for future impacts 

was 2030. This is based on the standard 20 year planning horizon (also called the “design year” used by WSDOT). As the 

Project’s environmental evaluation commenced in 2010, the 20 year planning horizon projected out to 2030. 

A queue length is the distance that 

vehicles extend back from an 

intersection while waiting to move 

through. Queue lengths are typically 

longest during morning and 

afternoon ‘rush hours.’ 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐12	 Environmental	Assessment	

future traffic volumes on roadways were modeled (both with and without the Project), and those modeled 

volumes were then used to calculate intersection delay (the average time in seconds vehicles wait before 

moving through an intersection) and vehicle queue length for major intersections. 

The models used measure the effects of railroad operations on 

surrounding roadways and intersections in the study area. Intersection 

delay is expressed as a Level of Service (LOS) (Figure 5) using 

methods established by the Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 

209. Vehicle queue lengths were analyzed to determine both average 

and maximum queue lengths. Analysts also evaluated the effects on 

pedestrian and bicycle traffic by comparing the non-motorized 

connections proposed with the Build Alternative to existing facilities. Two rail study models were 

completed as part of the Project, the Service Development Plan – Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor 

Cascades High-Speed Rail Program (WSDOT 2011a) and the D to 66th Street Operational Analysis 

Review (WSDOT 2010). Both models include Cascade and Coast Starlight trains. 

Figure 5. Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalized Intersections 

4.3.2 Affected Environment – Transportation

The existing Puget Sound rail route is near capacity and has physical and operational constraints that 

adversely affect both passenger and freight train scheduling and reliability. Tacoma Rail and BNSF are 

the operators of freight trains in the study area. Tacoma Rail operates as many as two trains per day on 

some portions of the Point Defiance Bypass route to as few as two trains per week on other portions of 

the Point Defiance Bypass route. BNSF operates intermittent freight trains on the Point Defiance Bypass 

route to serve military transportation needs at JBLM. Any increase in freight train use of the Point 

Defiance Bypass route would be subject to the terms of the various operating agreements between Sound 

LOS ranges from ‘A’ to ‘F,’ with the 

letter A describing the least amount 

of congestion and best operations, 

and the letter F indicating the highest 

amount of congestion and worst 

operations. 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐13	

Transit, Tacoma Rail, WSDOT, and Amtrak.9 There are no plans to increase freight on the Point Defiance 

Bypass route at this time. Tacoma Rail switches railcars while it builds trains in the Barksdale Avenue 

crossing area. During this switching operation, Barksdale Avenue can be closed to street traffic for 

several minutes, which affects the movement of vehicular and non-motorized traffic in the City of 

DuPont. 

Roadway LOS was measured for each of the at-grade rail crossing 

intersections for the peak hours (Figure 6). The results of the study 

area traffic analysis show that in the 2010 morning peak hour, the 

study area intersections range from LOS A through D; all acceptable 

LOS. In the 2010 afternoon peak hour, intersections operate at LOS A 

through D except for two intersections that operate at LOS F: North 

Thorne Lane Southwest and Union Avenue Southwest, and Berkeley Street Southwest/Union Avenue 

Southwest. Queue length analysis of the intersections identified in the cities of Tacoma and Lakewood 

showed that most intersections currently have at least one movement where queuing causes delays or 

interference with traffic flow. Additional information regarding queue length is in Appendix F (page 29). 

Pedestrians are served by sidewalks along most of the streets in the 

study area,10 while bike lanes are present on a few of the streets. 

Pedestrians and bicyclists are permitted to cross the tracks at all atgrade intersections in the study area. Many of the railroad crossings 

provide sidewalks and paved walkways. For all railroad crossings, the 

rails are recessed into the pavement, which increases pedestrian and bicyclist crossing safety. In the City 

of Lakewood, the Lakewood Station Connection Project, a pedestrian overcrossing, is under construction 

near Lakewood Station. The Lakewood Station Connection Project will provide a pedestrian overpass 

connecting the Lakewood Station to Kendrick Street on the north side of the Point Defiance Bypass 

tracks. 

Bus service in the study area is provided by Olympia Express (Intercity Transit), Pierce Transit, and 

Sound Transit. Sound Transit bus routes in the study area provide passenger service between the cities of 

DuPont, Lakewood, Tacoma, and Seattle. Pierce Transit provides routes connecting Lakewood, Tacoma, 

and JBLM. Intercity Transit operates Olympia Express routes that connect downtown Tacoma to 

downtown Olympia. All three bus services utilize a bus transit center located one block north of the 

Freighthouse Square Station. The Greyhound bus station is located across from the bus transit center. 

Sound Transit’s Lakewood Station, is located within the study area and includes a side platform and 

shelters for passengers. A parking garage at the station provides more than 600 commuter parking spaces. 

Additional information regarding affected environment is in Appendix F (page 29). 

 

9

 Operating agreements are between the track owners and the operators. Several operating agreements are in place between the 

various owners and operators along the Point Defiance Bypass, and include operating agreements between BNSF (owner) and 

WSDOT, Amtrak, and Tacoma Rail (operators); Sound Transit (owner) and BNSF, Tacoma Rail, WSDOT, and Amtrak; and, 

Tacoma Rail (owner) and Sound Transit (operator). 

10 Pedestrians also use the existing rail tracks and railroad ROW illegally as a means to travel within the area, especially in 

areas where sidewalks are intermittent or not available. 

The peak hours are the time of day 

when the highest amount of vehicles 

travel on the roadway network. The 

morning peak period is 7:00 AM to 

9:00 AM and afternoon peak period is 

4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. 

For study area jurisdictions, LOS D or 

better is an acceptable standard for 

intersection function; LOS E or F 

represents unacceptable intersection 

function. 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐14	 Environmental	Assessment	

4.3.3 Environmental Consequences – Transportation

4.3.3.1 No Build Alternative – Transportation

Minor maintenance and repair activities along the Puget Sound Route would occur as part of the No Build 

Alternative. These activities are minor and temporary and not expected to result in construction or 

operational effects to transportation. The No Build Alternative would not affect bus transit, pedestrians 

and bicyclists, stations, or parking. However, intercity passenger rail service on the Puget Sound route 

would continue to have a limited ability to expand service and would continue to be delayed by freight 

operations. With the No Build Alternative, traffic volumes would increase and intersection delay and 

queues are projected to increase by 2030, but most of the intersections are expected to continue to operate 

within LOS A through D. 

4.3.3.2 Build Alternative – Transportation

Construction Effects		

Sounder train service would not be affected by construction because the trains operate on adjacent tracks. 

Connections between the second track and the existing track would be made when Sounder trains are not 

operating. During construction, it is anticipated that south of Lakewood, the Point Defiance Bypass route 

(currently used by Tacoma Rail) would be out of service for a maximum of up to 4 days per week for up 

to 15 months. Tacoma Rail freight service would be rerouted to other available Tacoma Rail tracks as 

needed. WSDOT will coordinate with Tacoma Rail to maintain continued freight access during 

construction. 

Upgrading the existing crossing warning systems at Clover Creek Drive Southwest, North Thorne Lane 

Southwest, Berkeley Street Southwest, 41st Division Drive, and Barksdale Avenue would cause many of 

the crossing signal warning systems to be out of service until the new warning system is installed. These 

crossings would be manually controlled by construction traffic management personnel to control train, 

vehicle, and non-motorized traffic. This action would not delay freight trains because they travel at only 

about 10 mph, often stopping before proceeding through the five crossings to allow vehicles to clear the 

crossing. 

Construction vehicles would increase traffic delay during the construction period. The truck routes would 

not be known until construction, but it is anticipated that the majority of construction vehicles would use 

I-5 and major arterials. Temporary lane closures and occasional weekend road closures would be required 

to rebuild the track across the Clover Creek Drive Southwest, North Thorne Lane Southwest, Berkeley 

Street Southwest, 41st Division Drive, and Barksdale Avenue roadways. These actions would minimize 

the effect on the morning and afternoon commute periods, but would cause an increase in travel times 

during those times. Traffic control plans for these closures would include signage and prior notice to alert 

local and I-5 drivers of the work. Construction activities would similarly disrupt and delay transit, 

pedestrians and bicyclists, and parking. Additional information regarding construction effects is in 

Appendix F (page 159). 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐15	

Figure 6. At-Grade Crossings and Station Locations 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐16	 Environmental	Assessment	

Operational Effects

Relocating passenger rail service to the Point Defiance Bypass route would improve travel time of the 

Amtrak Cascades service by 10 minutes because of the shorter distance (approximately six miles shorter) 

and because the trains will operate at higher speeds on the less congested tracks, and would improve ontime performance by avoiding potential delays from freight trains on the existing route. Additionally, 

trains traveling on the Point Defiance Bypass route would avoid some operational delays affecting 

reliability and travel time currently experienced on the Puget Sound route from landslides, weatherrelated delays and closures, and drawbridge openings. The Amtrak Cascades schedule would also be 

coordinated with Sound Transit to preserve the line capacity needed for Sound Transit to operate existing 

commuter rail service. Table 4 details the existing and future rail operations on the Point Defiance Bypass 

route. 

Freight trains on the Puget Sound route would not be affected by relocating passenger trains to the Point 

Defiance Bypass route but could experience a slight benefit by removing passenger rail operations from 

the Puget Sound route. 

Table 4. Existing and Future Daily Rail Operations Along the Project Rail Line

No Build Alternative

(Existing)

Build Alternative

(Future)

Freight	(TR	and	BNSF) 211 212

Sound	Transit	 26 26 

Cascades	 0 12 

Starlight	 0 2 

Totals 28 42 

No new at-grade highway or rail crossings are planned and no at-grade road crossings would be closed 

with the Build Alternative. The addition of Amtrak passenger service to the Point Defiance Bypass route 

would increase the number of short-term roadway blockages by 14 from train crossings throughout the 

day and during the morning and evening peak hour, compared to the No Build Alternative. The 2030 

morning and evening peak hour roadway volumes are the same for the No Build and Build Alternatives, 

but the additional blockages would cause an increase in the overall time roadways are blocked for the 

Build Alternative. The average additional blockage time per crossing for the Project is approximately one 

minute during the morning and afternoon peak hour. 

In 2030, queue lengths are anticipated to increase slightly with the addition of Amtrak Cascades service 

for the Build Alternative. The road closure time for a train crossing would be similar to crossing closures 

for Sounder trains (approximately one minute or less). The anticipated maximum queue length increase 

would be approximately two to four more vehicles compared to the No Build Alternative because of 

signal control system enhancements incorporated into the Build Alternative. At some locations, the queue 

length, when compared to the No Build Alternative, would be reduced because signal improvements 

needed for safety would also optimize the movement of vehicle travel (for example, “free” right or left 

turns would be available when crossing traffic is stopped due to a train crossing). 

 

11 Tacoma Rail and BNSF are the operators of freight trains in the project study area. Tacoma Rail operates as many as two 

trains per day on some portions of the Bypass route to as few as two trains per week on other portions of the Bypass route. BNSF 

operates intermittent freight trains on the Point Defiance Bypass route to serve military transportation needs at JBLM. This 

condition applies to the Build and No Build Alternative. 

12 Any increase in freight train use on the Point Defiance Bypass route in the future would be subject to the terms of the operating 

agreement between Sound Transit, Tacoma Rail, WSDOT, and Amtrak. There are no plans at this time to increase freight trains 

on the Point Defiance Bypass route. Any increases in freight train use on the Puget Sound route would be determined by BNSF. 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐17	

The Build Alternative would reduce the number of intersections exceeding the LOS D standards set by 

local jurisdictions and WSDOT from nine to eight, compared to the No Build Alternative. The Build 

Alternative would improve substandard LOS conditions at the locations summarized in Table 5. 

Table 5. Year 2030 Intersections Improved by the Build Alternative

Intersection

AM Peak Hour LOS and

Delay (sec./veh.)

PM Peak Hour LOS and

Delay (sec./veh.)

No Build

Alternative

Build

Alternative

No Build

Alternative

Build

Alternative

North Thorne Lane Southwest and I-5 Southbound 

Ramps 

E (70.3) D (44.3) D (40.7) C (30.9) 

North Thorne Lane Southwest and I-5 Northbound 

Ramps 

E (75.2) E (70.7) F (91.3) E (74.8) 

Berkeley Street Southwest and Union Avenue 

Southwest 

F (102.2) F (83.5) F (64.1) D (42.9) 

Barksdale Avenue/Locust Road and I-5 Northbound 

Ramps 

E (62.5) E (57.6) E (56.0) E (55.8) 

With the Build Alternative, several intersections experience minor impacts resulting in decreased LOS but 

would continue to meet LOS A through D standards (Table 6). The remaining intersections would 

experience some change in delay (seconds per vehicle) but no LOS changes. 

Table 6. Year 2030 Intersections Experiencing a Decrease in LOS by the Build Alternative

Intersection

AM Peak Hour LOS and

Delay (sec./veh.)

PM Peak Hour LOS and

Delay (sec./veh.)

No Build

Alternative

Build

Alternative

No Build

Alternative

Build

Alternative

Steilacoom Boulevard Southwest and Lakeview 

Avenue Southwest 

No LOS 

change 

No LOS 

change 

A (9.9) B (10.2) 

Berkeley Street Southwest and I-5 northbound 

ramps 

No LOS 

change 

No LOS 

change 

C (29.8) D (41.9) 

41st Division Drive and I-5 southbound ramps No LOS 

change 

No LOS 

change 

A (9.7) B (11.9) 

Barksdale Avenue and DuPont-Steilacoom Road B (19.4) C (22.2) No LOS 

change 

No LOS 

change 

Bus transit would experience the same intersection delay and queue lengths at intersections as vehicles 

with the Build Alternative. The Build Alternative would not affect the location of bus stops or provide 

other transit service enhancements. 

While stopped at Freighthouse Square, the Coast Starlight train would extend beyond the existing station 

platform and across East C Street and East D Street. The blockage of these two streets would affect 

vehicular traffic during the time the Coast Starlight is at the station (dwell time of approximately six 

minutes). Infrequently, the Coast Starlight stop may coincide with an event at the nearby Tacoma Dome. 

During an event at the Tacoma Dome, the dwell time of the Coast Starlight train at Freighthouse Square 

would result in a decline of LOS to below LOS D (Appendix G, page 6). The temporary blockage of these 

two streets would result in a decline of LOS to below LOS D during an event at the Tacoma Dome. 

Minimization of operational effects on traffic as a result of the Coast Starlight dwell time at Freighthouse 

Square, and during a Tacoma Dome event, would include implementation of a detour plan that could 

include static signs identifying the detour routes, dynamic message signs that identify the detour routes 

during a train blockage, lane striping and controller modification. FRA and WSDOT would provide 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐18	 Environmental	Assessment	

additional modeling detail and design at the C and D Street intersections as part of the Final Design 

process. 

The Tacoma Amtrak Station relocation to Freighthouse Square would improve pedestrian connections 

between Amtrak passenger rail and transit services provided at the Tacoma Dome Station. This reduction 

in connection time would improve passenger connections and convenience when connecting between 

Amtrak, Sounder, Tacoma Link light rail, and bus transit. The Build Alternative would also improve 

sidewalks at North Thorne Lane Southwest, Berkeley Street Southwest, and Barksdale Avenue thus 

improving pedestrian access and safety. Elsewhere, pedestrians and bicyclists would experience similar 

intersection delays as vehicles with the Build Alternative. 

With the Build Alternative, parking for Amtrak would be located closer to the new Tacoma Dome Station 

at Freighthouse Square. This new parking would provide the same amount or more parking than is 

available at the existing Tacoma Station. In addition to this proposed parking, there would be some 

available on-street parking near the station (Puyallup Avenue, East 25th Street, East 26th Street, East C 

Street, East D Street, and East G Street) and in the existing parking garage. Remaining parking elsewhere 

would be largely unaffected by the Build Alternative. Additional information regarding operational 

effects is in Appendix F (page 80). 

4.3.4 Minimization Measures – Transportation

Although the Build Alternative would not have a significant effect on transportation requiring mitigation, 

effects associated with construction activities would be minimized by using a process similar to the 

coordination framework that was established during the design and construction of the Sounder D to M 

Street commuter rail project. The framework would ensure that rail freight delivery meets customer needs 

during construction. A traffic control plan would also be developed in coordination with local 

jurisdictions to minimize traffic delays and periodic lane and/or access revisions during construction of atgrade crossing improvements. WSDOT will coordinate local jurisdictions regarding the construction 

schedule, construction areas, and detour routes during Project development to minimize community 

disruption including for events such as the US Open. 

Minimization of operational effects on traffic as a result of the Coast Starlight dwell time at Freighthouse 

Square, and specifically during a Tacoma Dome event, will include implementation of a detour plan that 

may include static signs identifying detour routes and/or dynamic message signs that identify the detour 

routes during a train blockage. FRA and WSDOT would provide additional modeling detail and design at 

the C and D Street intersections as part of the Final Design process. 

4.4 Geology and Soils

4.4.1 Study Area and Methodology – Geology and Soils

The study area is defined as the corridor that lies within 1,000 feet both left and right of the centerline of 

the Project, including relocating the Tacoma Amtrak Station to the Tacoma Dome Station at Freighthouse 

Square. 

Geologic information for the corridor was obtained by collecting and 

reviewing existing data from federal, state, and local information sources. A 

geologic and geotechnical reconnaissance was conducted to assess surface 

conditions, geologic hazards, and likely subsurface conditions in the project 

corridor. 

In lateral spreading, soil 

behaves like a liquid, has an 

inability to support weight, 

and can flow down slopes. 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐19	

4.4.2 Affected Environment – Geology and Soils

The study area lies in the southern portion of the Puget Lowland, which formed as the result of glacial and 

non-glacial processes. Soil across most of the study area is relatively dense and strong. Along rivers and 

lakes sediment deposits have occurred that are less dense and have lower strength than the glacial 

deposits. Table 7 summarizes geologic-related critical areas within the study area, which include seismic, 

volcanic, landslide, erosion, and aquifer recharge hazard areas. There are no unique, of local interest, or 

protected soil or geologic resources present in the study area. Additional information regarding affected 

environment is in Appendix H (page 13). 

Table 7. Geologic Critical Areas within the Study Area

Geologic

Critical Area Definition Location within Study Area

Seismic 

Hazards Areas 

Areas subject to severe risk of damage as a 

result of seismic-induced settlement, 

shaking, lateral spreading, surface faulting, 

slope failure, or soil liquefaction. 

Several localized areas of potentially liquefiable soil were 

identified in the study area between near I-705 (rail MP 2.1) and 

South “M” Street (rail MP 3.2). 

Areas of potential slope instability within the study area 

comprise localized steep slopes (slopes greater than 40 

percent) between Pacific Avenue (rail MP 2.3) and about South 

“M” Street (rail MP 3.2) and immediately north of the I-5 

overcrossing (rail MP 20.0) and a broad area of steep slopes 

south of the I-5 overcrossing. 

The track section between TR Junction (rail MP 1.0) and about 

East “G” Street (rail MP 1.8) crosses through a designated 

seismic hazard area. 

Volcanic 

Hazard Areas 

Areas subject to pyroclastic flows, lava 

flows, and inundation by lahars, debris 

flows, or related flooding resulting from 

geologic and volcanic events on Mount 

Rainier. 

The track is located within this mapped volcanic hazard area 

from TR Junction (rail MP 1.0) to about East “G” Street (rail MP 

1.8). 

Landslide 

Hazard Areas 

Areas potentially subject to mass 

movement due to a combination of 

geologic, seismic, topographic, hydrologic, 

or man-made factors. 

Landslide hazard areas within the study area include the slope 

instability areas described under Seismic Hazards Areas. 

Erosion Hazard 

Areas 

Areas where the combination of slope and 

soil type makes the area susceptible to 

erosion by water flow, either by wave 

action, channel migration, or surface runoff. 

The mapped erosion hazard areas are primarily associated with 

potential erosion from channel migration of rivers or streams. 

Soil susceptible to erosion is present along the railroad corridor 

when cleared of vegetation or exposed on cut or fill slopes. 

Aquifer 

Recharge 

Areas 

Areas that are a highly used source of 

groundwater, and are tapped by public and 

private wells as a source of drinking water. 

The study area from north of the I-5 DuPont Interchange (rail 

MP 18.5) to Yakima Street (rail MP 2.8). 

Table Note: In lateral spreading, soil behaves like a liquid, has an inability to support weight, and can flow down slopes. 

4.4.3 Environmental Consequences – Geology and Soils

4.4.3.1 No Build Alternative – Geology and Soils

The geology and soils in the study area would remain undisturbed. Existing conditions and geologic 

hazards as summarized in Table 7 would persist under the No Build Alternative. 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐20	 Environmental	Assessment	

4.4.3.2 Build Alternative – Geology and Soils

Construction Effects		

Construction activities could temporarily disturb soils in the study area. For example, land clearing and 

excavation into existing slopes and embankments could expose soil, making it susceptible to wind and 

water erosion. Additional information regarding construction effects is in Appendix H (page 26). 

Operational Effects

As a general matter, the geology and soils in the project corridor would remain undisturbed as a result of 

Project operation. Areas currently susceptible to geologic hazards would continue to be susceptible. The 

Build Alternative would not affect (increase or decrease) the susceptibility of the area to these hazards. 

Shallow landslides may occur adjacent to steep slopes or in areas identified as landslide hazard areas. 

Additional information regarding operational effects is in Appendix H (page 26). 

4.4.4 Minimization Measures – Geology and Soils

Although the Build Alternative would not have a significant effect on geology and soils requiring 

mitigation, effects associated with construction activities would be addressed by using BMPs during 

construction, including: 

 Preparing and following a TESC Plan to implement proper erosion control and surface water runoff 

BMPs. 

 Paving or permanently restoring disturbed areas as soon as possible. 

 Designing temporary excavation slopes to prevent surface sloughing and shallow landsliding. 

 Designing all fill and pavement areas to drain away from construction areas and prevent ponding of 

water and softening of subgrade soils. 

 Limiting cut slopes to two horizontal feet to one vertical foot (2H:1V) or using retaining walls, and 

including permanent drainage facilities designed for anticipated water flows. 

4.5 Water Resources

4.5.1 Study Area and Methodology – Water Resources

The study area includes water resources that exist within the footprint of the Build Alternative, their 

associated drainage basins, and downstream receiving waters. Water resources in the study area include 

surface waters, floodplains, groundwater (including critical aquifer recharge areas), and shorelines. The 

station relocation at Freighthouse Square is also included in the study area. 

Existing conditions of water resources were identified using field observations, literature review, and 

aerial photographic analysis. The potential effects of each alternative on water resources were 

qualitatively compared to existing conditions. Additionally, WSDOT’s Highway Runoff Manual (HRM)

was used to determine if the alternatives met the requirements of the HRM (WSDOT 2010a).13

Alternatives meeting the minimum treatment standards of the HRM would have no significant effect on 

water resources and are expected to meet applicable regulations without the use of additional BMPs. See 

 

13 As the project proponent WSDOT’s manual is appropriate to use as it has been approved by the Washington State Department 

of Ecology, and provides guidelines to achieve compliance with federal and state water quality regulations. The HRM does 

provide guidance in conjunction with local ordinances regarding treatment standards for rail projects. 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐21	

Appendix I for more information about the study area and methodology for the analysis of potential water 

resource impacts. 

4.5.2 Affected Environment – Water Resources

Within the study area the following water resources were identified. Appendix I provides additional 

information on affected environment (page 19). 

 Surface Waters – The study area occurs within three major watersheds known as the Puyallup/White, 

Chambers/Clover, and Nisqually Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs) and seven watercourses 

described in Table 8 and shown on Figure 7. 

 Floodplains – There are 100- and 500-year floodplains associated with surface waters in the study 

area. The floodplains for Clover Creek and Murray Creek are regulated by Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), while the floodplains for Streams 1 and 2 are flood hazard areas 

designated by Pierce County. 

 Groundwater – The study area lies within an EPA-designated sole source aquifer area. In addition, 

Pierce County has designated critical aquifer recharge and wellhead protection areas that occur within 

the study area. 

 Shorelines – Within the study area, the Puyallup River, Nisqually River, and American Lake have 

shorelines of statewide significance.14 Clover Creek, Sequalitchew Creek (which flows between 

American Lake and Sequalitchew Lake), and Gravelly Lake also have regulated shorelines.15 

Table 8. Surface Waters within the Study Area

Surface Water Description

First Creek An urbanized stream network managed by the City of Tacoma as a stormwater conveyance system 

and utility corridor. First Creek flows through the study area in a 6-foot-diameter pipe before 

discharging to the Puyallup River. 

Tacoma Eastern 

Gulch/B-Street Gulch 

A large open channel that is typically dry, but may convey flows to the Thea Foss Waterway during 

large storms. The gulch flows are conveyed through the study area in a 6-foot-diameter culvert. 

Stream 1 A small tributary stream to Flett Creek that crosses the study area corridor through a 3-foot-diameter 

culvert. 

Clover Creek The largest stream in the study area, with documented water quality problems related to fecal 

coliform bacteria (Ecology 2009). The existing rail line crosses over the stream on a 70-foot-long 

wood trestle bridge. 

Stream 2 A small tributary stream to American Lake that only flows during certain times of the year. Though it 

is a small, intermittent stream, it has an associated 500-year floodplain and crosses the study area in 

a 5-foot-diameter culvert. 

Murray Creek A continuously-flowing tributary stream to American Lake that crosses the study area in a 9-footdiameter culvert. 

Stream 3 A small tributary to the Nisqually River that only flows during certain times of the year. It passes 

through the study area in a 3-foot-diameter culvert. 

 

14 WAC 173-18-310, WAC 173-20-570. 

15 WAC 173-18-310, WAC 173-20-560. 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐22	 Environmental	Assessment	

Figure 7. Wetland and Surface Water Resources 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐23	

4.5.3 Environmental Consequences – Water Resources

4.5.3.1 No Build Alternative – Water Resources

The water resources in the study area would not change under the No Build Alternative, and would be 

same as the existing conditions. 

4.5.3.2 Build Alternative – Water Resources

Construction Effects		

The Build Alternative could affect surface and groundwater from erosion, sedimentation, and pollutant 

spills during construction. Clover Creek, Stream 2 and Murray Creek would be more susceptible to 

construction effects due to their proximity to the Point Defiance Bypass route. However, through the 

implementation of required BMPs, effects would be minimized or avoided. Therefore, no construction 

effects are expected. 

Operational Effects		

The Build Alternative would add new impervious surfaces for roadway and sidewalk upgrades; however, 

the changes from pervious to impervious surfaces would be below the thresholds for flow control and 

water quality treatment requirements outlined in the HRM (WSDOT 2010a). Therefore, the Build 

Alternative is not expected to result in effects to surface waters through changes in volume or water 

quality. No changes would be made within the boundaries of regulated shorelines or floodplains. 

No effects are anticipated to surface waters, critical aquifer recharge or well protection areas. Additional 

information regarding operational effects is in Appendix I (page 31). 

4.5.4 Minimization Measures – Water Resources

Although the Build Alternative would not have an effect on water resources requiring mitigation, 

minimization measures would be implemented during construction of the Build Alternative to avoid and 

minimize potential effects to water quality. Under Section 402 of the CWA the contractor would be 

required to prepare and implement a Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to serve as the 

overall construction stormwater minimization plan. The CSWPPP would include a Temporary Erosion 

and Sediment Control Plan, Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan, Concrete Containment 

and Disposal Plan, and Fugitive Dust Plan.

4.6 Wetlands

4.6.1 Study Area and Methodology – Wetlands		

The study area is defined as the railroad right-of-way, which varies in width from approximately 

80-100 feet. The station relocation at Freighthouse Square is also included in the study area. Wetlands in 

the study area were delineated in 2006 and 2011 using the three parameter approach described in the 

Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997) and the Corps of 

Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE 1987).16 For each wetland identified, the functions and 

values were evaluated using the Wetland Functions Characterization Tool for Linear Projects 

 

16 The results of the HDR wetland delineation were verified by WSDOT in the field on June 7, 2011. Verified data were 

transferred to current data sheets derived from the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: 

Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version. 2.0). 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐24	 Environmental	Assessment	

(Null 2000). Buffer widths were also assigned to each wetland. Potential effects were then qualitatively 

evaluated for each wetland and associated buffer. 

4.6.2 Affected Environment – Wetlands

Four wetlands were identified in the study area (Figure 7). A description of the characteristics of each 

wetland is provided in Table 9. With the exception of Wetland AB, these wetlands have low to moderate 

values for various habitat, water quality, and water quantity functions (e.g., flood storage, erosion control, 

organic production). Wetland AB has a high value for aquatic invertebrate and amphibian habitat 

functions. Additional information regarding affected environment is in Appendix J (page 13). 

Table 9. Wetland Descriptions

Wetland

ID

Cowardin

Classification1

and HGM Class2

Estimated

Size

(Acres) Rating3

Jurisdiction

and

Buffer Dominant Vegetation

A PSS 

Depressional 0.27 III Lakewood 75 feet 

Pacific willow and Himalayan 

blackberry 

E PEM 

Riverine 0.3 III 

JBLM 

(Pierce County) 

80 feet 

Common cattail, reed 

canarygrass 

C PFO 

Slope 1.7 IV Pierce County 50 feet 

Red alder, Himalayan blackberry, 

and scouring rush 

AB PFO 

Slope 1.2 III Pierce County 80 feet 

Red alder, salmonberry, and 

youth-on-age 

1 Cowardin et al. 1979 

2 Brinson 1993 

3 Hruby 2004, and City of DuPont Municipal Code, DMC Chapter 25-105. 

4.6.3 Environmental Consequences – Wetlands

4.6.3.1 No Build Alternative – Wetlands

The wetland resources in the study area would not change under the No Build Alternative and existing 

conditions would persist. 

4.6.3.2 Build Alternative – Wetlands

Construction Effects		

While construction activities associated with the Build Alternative 

could result in temporary effects to adjacent wetlands, the effects on 

wetlands would not be significant. Construction could result in a 

short-term loss of wetland functions associated with habitat and 

water quality and ground disturbance could result in minor erosion 

of disturbed soils into wetlands and buffer areas, impairing 

vegetation and habitat. Clearing and grading activities in the 

vicinity of wetlands would have the potential to affect surface water quality during seasonal events when 

surface water is present. However, through the implementation of required BMPs, effects during 

construction would be minimized or avoided. 

Wetland functions are properties 

that a wetland naturally provides 

such as habitat for waterfowl or 

retaining water during floods. 

Wetland values are properties that 

are valuable to humans such as 

uniqueness or educational use. 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐25	

Operational Effects		

The operation of the Build Alternative would not affect wetlands. The Build Alternative would result in 

an increase in rail traffic that could affect the use of wetlands by wildlife. Potential effects to wildlife are 

discussed in Section 4.7 (Fish, Vegetation, and Wildlife). Additional information regarding the effects are 

included in Appendix J (page 18). 

4.6.4 Minimization Measures – Wetlands

Although the Build Alternative would not have a significant effect on wetlands requiring mitigation, 

effects associated with construction activities would be reduced by the following minimization measures: 

 Clearing limits would be clearly marked and protected with construction fencing. 

 Various sediment control BMPs would be used to remove sediment prior to any stormwater runoff 

leaving the site. 

 Exposed soils would be stabilized to prevent erosion (i.e., hydroseeding, straw wattles, etc.). 

 A temporary erosion control blanket would be placed immediately after seeding, fertilizing, and 

mulching. 

 All on-site pollutants, including waste materials and demolition debris, would be handled and 

disposed in a manner that does not cause contamination of stormwater. 

 On-track vehicle/machinery maintenance and fueling locations would be established away from 

aquatic resources. 

 Any on-site fuel storage would have secondary containment equal to 150 percent of storage capacity. 

 All waste oils and machinery fluids would be removed by a maintenance vehicle when they are 

generated. No waste oils or fluids would be stored on site. 

 Application of chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides would be conducted in a manner and at 

application rates that would not result in loss of chemicals to stormwater runoff. 

 Highly turbid or contaminated dewatering water would be handled separately from stormwater and 

not allowed to enter local drainage systems. 

4.7 Fish, Vegetation, and Wildlife

4.7.1 Study Area and Methodology – Fish, Vegetation, and Wildlife

The study area is limited to within a 200-foot radius of the railroad right-of-way centerline, including the 

station relocation at Freighthouse Square. Background research and field surveys were conducted to 

collect information on fish, wildlife, and vegetation. Wildlife species and plant communities observed 

along the right-of-way during field surveys were documented. For fisheries, documentation included 

visual inspection of potential habitat for threatened and endangered species and identification of fish 

passage barriers. 

4.7.2 Affected Environment – Fish, Vegetation, and Wildlife

Fish habitat associated with the study area surface waters is described in Table 10 and surface waters are 

shown on Figure 7. Fish presence was documented in Murray Creek and Clover Creek. Clover Creek is 

documented as supporting winter steelhead17 and Coho salmon.18

 

17 Federally listed as Threatened. 

18 Federally listed as a Species of Concern. 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐26	 Environmental	Assessment	

Table 10. Fish Habitat and Presence within the Study Area

Surface

Water

Documented Fish Presence

Fish Habitat Description

Salmon and

Steelhead

Presence

(Listing Status*)

Critical

Habitat		

Present

Other Resident

Fishes

Stream 1 None No None Narrow, densely vegetated ditch that runs 

between large, paved parking lots before it is 

directed through long culverts. 

Clover Creek Steelhead (FT) 

Coho (FSC) 

No Cutthroat trout, 

Rainbow trout, 

Pacific lamprey 

(FSC, SM) 

Substrate is composed of gravels with a few 

cobbles. Habitat in the creek is largely riffle 

type. Vegetative cover on the creek banks is 

approximately 50 percent. 

Stream 2 None No None Channel is poorly defined, and substrate is 

largely sands with areas of gravels and spalls 

that have fallen from the railroad embankment. 

Habitat is largely run type, but backwater areas 

are present. Fine organic debris is common in 

the water, and the channel is well shaded by 

vegetation. 

Murray Creek None No Cutthroat trout Habitat is entirely pool type. Vegetative cover 

on the banks is dominated by common cattail 

and reed canarygrass. 

Stream 3 None No None Defined channel approximately 5-15 feet in 

width and about 6 inches deep. Substrate is 

largely silt, with small areas of gravel. Organic 

debris (twigs and leaves) are common. The 

habitat is mostly runs type, with a few smaller 

pools and a single large pool just upstream of 

the culvert. Vegetative cover is approximately 

100 percent. 

* (FT) Federal Threatened; (FSC) Federal Species of Concern, (SM) State Monitor 

Most of the study area has little to no vegetation. This is by design, as vegetation near the tracks inhibits 

safety by reducing sight lines, and may foul the track itself. Vegetation generally occurs at or near the 

edge of the railroad right-of-way. Vegetation types located in the study area include maintained 

vegetation (Scotch broom, Himalayan blackberry, and mixed grasses that is either mowed, trimmed or 

treated with herbicide), disturbed mixed forest (Douglas fir, Pacific madrone, Lombardi poplar and 

Oregon white oak; that have been altered by development, including thinning, trimming, or 

fragmentation), scattered trees, and wetland vegetation (Table 9). 

Nine plant species are protected by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and 

Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) in Pierce County. However, no protected species 

were observed during the field surveys and based on vegetation communities and habitats observed 

during site visits, it is unlikely that any protected plant species occur in the study area. 

Most of the habitat in the study area is fragmented and provides poor habitat for most wildlife species, 

except those that have adapted to urban areas. Therefore, wildlife likely to be in the study area includes 

birds, rodents, and raccoons. Feral cats and dogs may also be present. No Federally-listed wildlife species 

are documented within the study area. Bald eagles nest outside the study area on the southeast shore of 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐27	

American Lake, over 600 feet from the right-of-way. The nests are not visible from the railroad due to 

screening by trees and large buildings. Additional information regarding affected environment is in 

Appendix K (page 11). 

4.7.3 Environmental Consequences – Fish, Vegetation, and Wildlife

4.7.3.1 No Build Alternative – Fish, Vegetation, and Wildlife

Existing conditions for fish, vegetation, and wildlife in the study area would persist under the No Build 

Alternative. 

4.7.3.2 Build Alternative – Fish, Vegetation, and Wildlife

Construction Effects		

No in-water work is proposed and no effects to fish are anticipated during construction. Approximately 24 

acres of maintained vegetation, 2.5 acres of disturbed mixed forest, and one acre of scattered trees would 

be removed from the study area as a result of the Build Alternative. These resources do not support 

habitat for protected species. The removal of maintained and disturbed vegetation would have no effect to 

wildlife, as the quality of habitat is poor and individuals would relocate to other vegetated areas in the 

vicinity. Visual disturbance and elevated noise are expected to be marginally higher than baseline levels 

during construction and would disturb terrestrial wildlife that may be present within the right-of-way, but, 

in the context of urban development, vehicular traffic, and pedestrian activity, the effects on wildlife 

would be minimal. The Project would have no effect to listed species. Appendix S includes concurrence 

correspondence and the no effect determination letters submitted to the USFWS and National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS). Additional information regarding construction effects is in Appendix K (page 

24). 

Operational Effects		

As discussed in Section 4.5.2, no effects to water quality are anticipated; therefore, no effects to fish 

species would occur. No operational effects to wildlife or vegetation are anticipated from the Build 

Alternative. Additional information regarding operational effects is in Appendix K (page 24). 

4.7.4 Minimization Measures – Fish, Vegetation, and Wildlife

The Build Alternative would not have significant effects to fish, vegetation, or wildlife requiring 

mitigation. Effects associated with construction activities would be reduced by the following 

minimization measures: 

 Confine construction activities to the minimum area necessary. 

 Develop and implement a TESC Plan and CSWPPP for clearing, vegetation removal, grading, 

ditching, filling, embankment compaction, or excavation. The BMPs in the plans would be used to 

control sediments from ground-disturbing activities. 

 For construction activities that occur within 200 feet of surface water or wetland habitat as identified 

by the Project biologist, use BMPs to ensure that no foreign material, such as railroad ballast or other 

material, is sidecast, and to control and prevent sediments from entering aquatic systems. 

 Native species would be used for reseeding where possible. 

 Minimize removal of native vegetation to the greatest extent possible. 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐28	 Environmental	Assessment	

4.8 Hazardous Materials		

4.8.1 Study Area and Methodology – Hazardous Materials

The study area included areas where hazardous material encounters or ground disturbance work would 

occur: a quarter mile around Freighthouse Square and the rail corridor between rail MP 10.4 and rail MP 

21.5 (between Bridgeport Way Southwest and the end of the Project). 

Historic land use and geologic information as well as regulatory 

records were reviewed to identify land use or business operations that 

may have used hazardous materials and had the potential to 

contaminate soil or groundwater, and assess possible contaminant 

migration routes. Identified sites of concern were then screened to 

eliminate sites that pose low risk. Sites that remained after screening 

were assigned a risk level based on the probable extent of 

contamination, and evaluated to determine whether there may be an 

effect that cannot be reasonably minimized. 

4.8.2 Affected Environment – Hazardous Materials

Nineteen sites were identified to have either a moderate or high effect where excavation work is planned 

to go below 2 feet of the existing ground surface. The sites of highest concern include documented 

contaminated sites and sites that have a potential for a release immediately adjacent to or within the 

construction area where subsurface construction work is probable (see Figure 8). The sites of highest 

concern identified within the study area are summarized in Table 11. Additional information regarding 

affected environment is in Appendix L (page 35). 

Table 11. Hazardous Materials Sites of Concern within the Study Area

High Effect Site Contamination Concern

Freighthouse Square (Site #2) Contamination above Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) Method A cleanup levels and 

is subject to an environmental restrictive covenant. 

Industrial Parts Frictions I (Site #26/PP3) Located in a historically heavy commercial and industrial area; the business has 

handled or generated hazardous materials. Past and current business operations on 

or adjacent to the property may have contaminated the site. 

Airspares (Site #53/PP1) Located in a historically heavy commercial and industrial area; the business has 

handled or generated hazardous materials. Past and current business operations on 

or adjacent to the property may have contaminated the site. 

Stone Property Transit (Site #58/PP2) Soil is known to be contaminated with arsenic and other metals, along with petroleum 

products and polynuclear aromatics. Solvents are also in the soil; however, the 

concentrations are reportedly below Ecology’s current cleanup levels. These 

substances are suspected to also be in the groundwater, which is shallow in this area. 

Sound Transit Rail Property (Site #83)1 Existing rail sections are underlain by ballast material, which may include slag from 

the ASARCO smelter that historically operated in Ruston. 

Tacoma Smelter Plume (Site #84) Contaminated surface soils caused by the historical operation of the ASARCO 

smelter plant. Surface soils may contain lead and arsenic concentrations in soils 

above the MTCA Method A cleanup (WSDOT 2007). 

USEPA Lakewood Superfund Site (Site 

#80) 

The Lakewood Superfund site (aka Ponder’s Corner or Plaza Cleaners) has 

contaminated groundwater beneath the rail right-of-way. 

Fort Lewis Logistics Center Superfund 

Site (Site #82) 

The Superfund site has trichloroethylene (TCE)-contaminated groundwater that 

extends under the rail alignment. 

Site risk level categories included the 

following: 

Low: The risk of encountering 

contamination is low. 

Moderate: The risk of potential 

contamination to exist on the site is 

probable, yet, if encountered, the 

contamination is straightforward to 

manage. 

High: The risk of extensive and/or 

highly toxic contamination is known 

or suspected to exist on the site. 

Site risk level categories included the 

following: 

Low: The risk of encountering 

contamination is low. 

Moderate: The risk of potential 

contamination to exist on the site is 

probable, yet, if encountered, the 

contamination is straightforward to 

manage. 

High: The risk of extensive and/or 

highly toxic contamination is known 

or suspected to exist on the site. 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐29	

Table 11. Hazardous Materials Sites of Concern within the Study Area

High Effect Site Contamination Concern

Major Site of Note: Commencement 

Bay, Nearshore/Tideflats Superfund Site 

(Sites #46/#50) 

Superfund site is a potentially moderate effect because the study area does not 

intercept the boundaries of the Superfund site’s cleanup areas. However, the former 

ASARCO smelter is the source of the slag that was generated from the copper 

smelting process that was either disposed of in Commencement Bay or used as 

crushed rock applications (i.e., driveways and roadbed material). Also, airborne 

emissions from the ASARCO smelter facility contaminated surface soil with arsenic 

and lead. 

Major Site of Note: American Lake 

Gardens Superfund Site (Site #81) 

The site has contaminated groundwater with VOCs, including trichloroethene (TCE) 

and dichloroethylene (DCE). Superfund site is a potential moderate effect because 

the contaminated groundwater plume does not extend under the rail alignment. 

1 Although the site is referred to as Sound Transit Rail Property (Site #83), the contamination is found along the entire Point 

Defiance Bypass route which is owned by Sound Transit, Tacoma Rail, and BNSF. 

4.8.3 Environmental Consequences – Hazardous Materials

4.8.3.1 No Build Alternative – Hazardous Materials

Minor maintenance and repair activities along the existing rail line would occur as part of the No Build 

Alternative. The current commodity mix hauled by both BNSF and Tacoma Rail, which may include 

hazardous materials, would continue to be transported along the Puget Sound route and Point Defiance 

Bypass route. Existing conditions and hazardous materials would persist under the No Build Alternative. 

4.8.3.2 Build Alternative – Hazardous Materials

Construction Effects		

If encountered during construction, the presence of contaminated soil or groundwater could result in 

public health or environmental effects through the releasing and spreading of contaminated soil, sediment, 

or groundwater; altering the flow of or generating contaminated groundwater; and creating pathways for 

contamination to migrate through the soil column. Contaminants in airborne particulates can migrate offsite in dust particles and may cause an exposure concern. Accidental hazardous materials spills or releases 

from construction activities, equipment, or materials may also occur. 

In general, earthwork activities are shallow and not likely to reach contaminated groundwater associated 

with the USEPA Lakewood Superfund Site (Site #80). Earthwork associated with utility work in the 

Freighthouse Square area (Site #2) may encounter an area where contaminated groundwater is known to 

exist. Due to the potential concern for surface soils to be contaminated from the ASARCO smelter plant 

operations (Site #46 and 50), ground disturbance work may release contaminated dust particles to the 

surrounding populace in that area. However, minimization measures would avoid, control, and manage 

these effects. Additional information regarding construction effects is in Appendix L (page 43). 

 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐30	 Environmental	Assessment	

Figure 8. Hazardous Materials Sites of Concern–High Priority and Major Sites

 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐31	

The Build Alternative would acquire property for parking areas near Freighthouse Square in Tacoma. The 

property is located in a historically heavy commercial and industrial area with businesses that have 

handled or generated hazardous materials (Sites #26, 53, and 58 in Table 11). Past and current business 

operations on or adjacent to the property may have a strong potential to have contaminated these sites. 

Any acquisition in a historically heavy commercial and industrial area should be considered a high risk 

with respect to inheriting cleanup liability. 

Operational Effects		

Amtrak Cascades trains would not be carrying hazardous material in bulk and there would be no increase 

in freight trains on the Point Defiance Bypass route. The current commodity mix hauled by both BNSF 

and Tacoma Rail freight trains, which may include hazardous materials, would continue to be transported 

along the Puget Sound route and Point Defiance Bypass route. Therefore there would be no increase in 

the freight rail transport of hazardous material through the study area. Additional information regarding 

operational effects is in Appendix L (page 43). 

4.8.4 Minimization Measures – Hazardous Materials

Although the Build Alternative would not have a significant effect on hazardous materials requiring 

mitigation, it would employ standard measures that help avoid, control, and manage potential effects from 

hazardous materials during construction, including: 

 Performing site-specific hazardous material investigations where and when necessary. 

 Preparing and implementing a project-specific hazardous material management plans. 

 Preparing and implementing a CSWPPP. 

 Preparing and implementing a TESC Plan, including dust control measures as described in Section 

4.1.4 Air Quality.

 Preparing and implementing an SPCCP. 

 Coordinating with Ecology during acquisition and construction for work completed within the 

environmental restrictive covenant at Freighthouse Square. 

4.9 Visual Quality

4.9.1 Study Area and Methodology – Visual Quality		

The study area includes the area within approximately one-half mile from the tracks for both alternatives. 

Specific viewpoints for an assessment of effects are generally between 20 and 100 feet from the tracks of 

the Point Defiance Bypass route. The station relocation at Freighthouse Square is also included within the 

study area. The process for evaluating visual effects included first identifying the locations where viewers 

would likely experience the most visible change. This first step identified 12 key viewpoints that were 

selected because of their key location within the study area, or they represented an area of potential 

effects, and/or represented a land cover type (e.g. commercial or residential area).Additional information 

on selection of key viewpoints is described in Appendix M (page 10). Photographs were taken from the 

12 key viewpoints (Table 12 and Figure 10), and the likely changes to the scene were described for each 

alternative. The changes to views from the key viewpoints are intended to represent the types of changes 

that could potentially be experienced for each alternative. Each viewpoint was given a numerical 

evaluation of visual quality based on a methodology from the Federal Highway Administration Visual 

Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (FHWA 1981). This methodology is intended to reduce the 

subjectivity of visual analysis. 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐32	 Environmental	Assessment	

Table 12. Key Viewpoints in the Study Area

View Key Viewpoint

From the Point Defiance Bypass route 

Railroad Tracks 

P1 – Freighthouse Square 

P2 – Southgate Elementary School 

P3 – Nyanza Single-Family Residential Neighborhood 

P4 – Gravelly Lake Townhomes 

P5 – Union Avenue Southwest Mixed Residential Neighborhood 

P6 – DuPont Multifamily Residential 

From Road Crossings adjacent to the 

Point Defiance Bypass route 

R1 – South 74th Street (City of Tacoma) 

R2 – 100th Street Southwest (City of Lakewood) 

R3 – 108th Street Southwest (City of Lakewood) 

R4 – North Thorne Lane Southwest (City of Lakewood) 

R5 – Berkeley Street Southwest (City of Lakewood) 

R6 – Barksdale Avenue (aka DuPont-Steilacoom Road, City of DuPont) 

4.9.2 Affected Environment – Visual Quality

The landscape setting in the study area includes urban and industrial areas, suburban residential 

neighborhoods, parks and schools, undeveloped areas and the region’s largest military base. The study 

area along the Build Alternative is a railroad corridor (Point Defiance Bypass route) that is typically 

unvegetated and includes tracks supported by ties and a gravel base and edged with a chain link fence. 

Additional information regarding affected environment is in Appendix M (page 15). 

4.9.3 Environmental Consequences – Visual Quality

4.9.3.1 No Build Alternative – Visual Quality

Minor maintenance and repair activities, as well as, existing rail operations on the existing corridor would 

not affect the visual quality in the study area under the No Build Alternative. Existing conditions and 

visual quality would persist under the No Build Alternative. 

4.9.3.2 Build Alternative – Visual Quality

Construction Effects		

Construction would be relatively short in duration and would not affect any single location along the 

tracks for a long period of time; therefore, effects to visual quality would be minor from construction of 

the Build Alternative. Additional information regarding construction effects is in Appendix M (page 41). 

Operational Effects		

Changes to the rails, crossings, and similar elements would be inconspicuous, and in most locations the 

existing and proposed views would be similar; thus, physical effects to scenery would be minor. 

Operational changes would likely have the most visual effect along the corridor. Although trains are 

present only for a short time, they are quite large, and can be a prominent element in a view (Figure 9). 

Train tracks make up a fairly small part of the overall view, even when viewed from close up. The 

addition of passenger trains under the Build Alternative would decrease privacy for occupants of 

buildings adjacent to the rail line for a short period of time. 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐33	

Figure 9. Visual View of Tracks vs. Train 

Changes to the Freighthouse Square building and platform to accommodate use by Amtrak would be 

minor. The massing, detail, and character of the building would be nearly indistinguishable from current 

conditions. The parking at Freighthouse Square would also be compatible with surrounding land uses and 

existing visual conditions. 

The current passenger train route (Puget Sound route) offers a scenic ride for passengers along the 

shoreline of Puget Sound. Views from the passenger train along the Point Defiance Bypass Route would 

have a different character, with more views of developed landscapes, I-5, and urban commercial 

neighborhoods. Overall, the visual quality of the traveler experience aboard the passenger railroad system 

would be lower through the Point Defiance Bypass route, when compared to the Puget Sound route. 

Additional information regarding operational effects is in Appendix M (page 41). 

4.9.4 Minimization Measures – Visual Quality

Although the Build Alternative would not have a significant effect on visual quality requiring mitigation, 

effects associated with construction activities would be reduced by the following minimization measures: 

 Maintain existing vegetation at the edge of the railroad right-of-way to screen the rail line at locations 

determined during final design. 

 Enhance vegetative buffers and screening where the rail line is adjacent to residential and institutional 

properties at locations determined during final design. 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐34	 Environmental	Assessment	

Figure 10. Key Viewpoints from Adjacent Properties in the Project Area 

 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐35	

4.10 Cultural Resources

4.10.1 Study Area and Methodology – Cultural Resources

The study area for cultural resources is the Area of Potential Effect (APE) extends 75 feet from the 

centerline of the rail line from Freighthouse Square in Tacoma south to the connection with the BNSF 

main line near Nisqually. The Puget Sound route was not included in the study area because no changes 

that would potentially affect historic properties were planned as part of the No Build Alternative. 

Historical records were reviewed and a pedestrian and shovel probe survey were conducted within the 

APE from 66th Street in Lakewood south to the connection with the BNSF main line. In addition, an 

architectural resources survey was completed for the APE to identify structures 50 years old or older that 

may be eligible for listing in the NRHP. Pursuant to the NHPA (36 CFR § 800.2(a)), FRA delegated 

authorization to WSDOT to consult with DAHP on behalf of FRA (Appendix S). A no adverse effect 

determination letter was submitted to DAHP in July 2012 (Appendix S). 

4.10.2 Affected Environment – Cultural Resources

Cultural materials were identified within the APE but were disturbed and not eligible for listing in the 

NRHP. Nine properties 50 years or older were identified within the APE and two have been determined 

eligible for listing in the NRHP: 

 The Northern Pacific Railway19 has been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP by DAHP under 

NRHP Criterion A because of the rail line’s profound influence on economic and residential 

development in the Pacific Northwest and under Criterion B for its associations with E. S. 

“Skookum” Smith and Smith’s instrumental role in the completion of this section of rail line. The 

alignment in the APE begins north of the Nisqually River, parallels I-5 in the southern portion of the 

APE, and then parallels South Tacoma Way, in Lakewood. This alignment accommodates three rail 

spurs that are no longer operational within the APE. 

 The 66th Street overcrossing bridge has been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP by DAHP on 

the local level, under Criteria A and B. The recommended listing under Criterion B is for its 

associations with E. J. Felt. 

4.10.3 Environmental Consequences – Cultural Resources

4.10.3.1 No Build Alternative – Cultural Resources

Minor maintenance and repair activities would not affect cultural or historic resources and existing 

conditions would persist under the No Build Alternative. 

4.10.3.2 Build Alternative – Cultural Resources

Construction Effects		

The Build Alternative would have no adverse effect on the existing Northern Pacific Railway as no 

realignment, destruction, or damage that would change the use or intrinsic character would occur to the 

railway during construction. The Build Alternative would also have no adverse effect on the 66th Street 

OC Bridge during construction, as there would be no changes to the character of the bridge’s use or 

physical features, or introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of 

the bridge’s significant features. 

 

19 On July 2, 1864, the US Congress passed an act incorporating the Northern Pacific Railway Company for the purpose of 

constructing a rail line from Lake Superior to Puget Sound. The Point Defiance Bypass route follows a portion of the original 

alignment that was constructed by the Northern Pacific Railway Company. 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐36	 Environmental	Assessment	

In addition, tribal consultation has not identified any potential adverse construction effects to Native 

American traditional cultural or ceremonial places or resources within the APE. Tribal consultation is 

further detailed in Section 5.0, Coordination and Consultation. Federally-recognized tribes and SHPO 

were consulted, as required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The SHPO 

concurred with the determination of no adverse effect on cultural and historic resources (see Appendix S). 

Operational Effects		

The operation of the Build Alternative would have no adverse effect on the existing Northern Pacific 

Railway as no realignment, destruction, or damage would occur to the railway change the use or intrinsic 

character. The Build Alternative would also have no adverse effect on the 66th Street OC Bridge during 

operation, as there would be no changes to the character of the bridge’s use or physical features, or 

introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the bridge’s 

significant features. The Project would continue to use the 66th Street OC Bridge for rail traffic over 66th

Street Southwest. In addition, tribal consultation has not identified any potential adverse operation effects 

to Native American traditional cultural or ceremonial places or resources within the APE. Tribal 

consultation is further detailed in Section 5.0, Coordination and Consultation. Federally-recognized tribes 

and SHPO were consulted, as required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The 

SHPO concurred with the determination of no adverse effect on cultural and historic resources 

(Appendix S). 

4.10.4 Minimization Measures – Cultural Resources

Although the Build Alternative would not have a significant effect on cultural resources an inadvertent 

discovery plan would be developed using the WSDOT template and approved by DAHP prior to 

construction. If during construction, unanticipated cultural deposits, artifacts, or human remains are 

encountered, work in the vicinity would be halted and local law enforcement officials and DAHP staff 

contacted immediately. 

4.11 Section 4(f) Resources

4.11.1 Study Area and Methodology – Section 4(f) Resources

The study area for Section 4(f) resources correlates to study areas noted in Section 4.10.1 Cultural 

Resources and Section 4.13.1 Land Use. The study area for cultural resources is the APE that extends 75 

feet from the centerline of the rail line from Freighthouse Square in Tacoma south to the connection with 

the BNSF main line near Nisqually. The study area for land use includes the existing railroad right-ofway along the Point Defiance Bypass route and land uses within 500 feet of each side of the route, 

including the station relocation at Freighthouse Square. 

Projects using federal funds or requiring a permit or license from the USDOT must meet the requirements 

of Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 (49 USC 303). Section 4(f) protects public parks, recreation 

lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites from being “used” in transportation projects 

carried out or funded by modal administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, including the 

FRA. Because no acquisition of parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl sites is proposed as a part 

of the Project, Section 4(f) provisions do not apply to these resources. 

Potential historical sites that may meet the requirements of Section 4(f) were evaluated by reviewing 

existing documentation, including a literature search and field investigation that was performed as part of 

the cultural resources survey. Cultural resources (historic sites) are considered Section 4(f) resources and 

thus the cultural resources surveys that were conducted to identify and evaluate NRHP eligible resources 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐37	

also identified Section 4(f) resources. Effects of the project were determined by comparing design 

information with data on the existing Section 4(f) resources present in the study area. 

4.11.2 Affected Environment – Section 4(f) Resources

As described in Section 4.10.2 Cultural Resources, two resources have been determined eligible for 

listing in the NRHP: 

 The Northern Pacific Railway; and, 

 The 66th Street overcrossing bridge. 

These two resources would potentially qualify as Section 4(f) resources. 

4.11.3 Environmental Consequences – Section 4(f) Resources

4.11.3.1 No Build Alternative – Section 4(f) Resources

Minor maintenance and repair activities would not affect cultural or historic resources and existing 

conditions would persist under the No Build Alternative. 

4.11.3.2 Build Alternative – Section 4(f) Resources

Construction Impacts		

As described in Section 4.10.3.2 Cultural Resources, the Build Alternative would have no effect on the 

existing Northern Pacific Railway as no realignment, destruction, or damage that would change the use or 

intrinsic character would occur to the railway during construction. The Build Alternative would also have 

no effect on the 66th Street OC Bridge during construction, as there would be no changes to the character 

of the bridge’s use or physical features, or introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that 

diminish the integrity of the bridge’s significant features. 

Operational Impacts		

As described in Section 4.10.3.2 Cultural Resources, the operation of the Build Alternative would have no 

effect on the existing Northern Pacific Railway as no realignment, destruction, or damage would occur to 

the railway that would change the use or intrinsic character. The Build Alternative would also have no 

effect on the 66th Street OC Bridge during operation, as there would be no changes to the character of the 

bridge’s use or physical features, or introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish 

the integrity of the bridge’s significant features. The Project would continue to use the 66th Street OC 

Bridge for rail traffic over 66th Street Southwest. 

4.11.4 Minimization Measures – Section 4(f) Resources

As no use of Section (4)f resources would occur no minimization measures are required. 

4.12 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice		

4.12.1 Study Area and Methodology – Socioeconomics and Environmental

Justice

The study area for socioeconomics includes a half mile on either side of the Point Defiance Bypass route. 

The environmental justice (EJ) study area includes a half mile on either side of the Puget Sound and Point 

Defiance Bypass routes, and included whole census block or neighborhood boundaries within the 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐38	 Environmental	Assessment	

analysis. The study area also includes the station relocation at Freighthouse Square. A half mile on either 

side of the Puget Sound and Point Defiance Bypass route centerlines was defined, because this area would 

contain the direct and indirect effects that could be attributed to the Build and No-Build conditions. The 

Puget Sound route is included in the EJ study area for consideration of any effects on EJ populations from 

the No Build Alternative, which would include the continued use of the existing Puget Sound route for 

Amtrak service. 

Census data were gathered for all of Pierce County and evaluated for 

representation of minority and low-income populations. Literature 

searches, field visits were also gathered to determine community 

demographics related to elderly people, people with disabilities, 

Limited English Proficiency, low income, and minority populations. 

Within the defined study area, demographic and community 

characteristics, including connectivity and cohesion were evaluated 

and EJ communities were identified. The EJ analysis was conducted 

in conformity with Executive Order 12898 and the US Department of 

Transportation Updated Environmental Justice Order 5610.2(a), 

which set forth a policy to consider the principles of environmental justice in agency programs, policies 

and activities. In addition, as required by Executive Order 12898, FRA and WSDOT are actively pursuing 

public involvement and outreach efforts, including providing information and opportunities for input from 

LEP populations, with materials translated into Spanish, Korean, Vietnamese and Russian. EJ populations 

within the project corridor were contacted as part of the larger information distribution efforts. A number 

of outreach events occurred within EJ population centers, including Lakewood’s Tillicum Community 

Center and South Tacoma’s South Park Community Center. Public involvement is further discussed in 

Section 5.0, Coordination and Consultation. 

4.12.2 Affected Environment – Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Socioeconomics

Community Characteristics. The community characteristics in the study area vary widely as the existing 

and proposed rail corridors traverse industrial, commercial, and residential areas. 

Community Connectivity and Cohesion. In general, connectivity through neighborhoods in the study 

area is good, although there are some neighborhoods (Tillicum, Woodbrook, and Nyanza neighborhoods) 

that have reported limited connections to adjacent areas. The limited connection, and thus some isolation 

is due to transportation features such as I-5 and the rail corridor, military installations (i.e. JBLM) as well 

as natural geographic features such as Gravelly Lake and American Lake (Figure 11). Connectivity is also 

affected by traffic congestion between the neighborhood and adjacent areas within the Point Defiance 

Bypass route. This is primarily related to congestion at intersections adjacent to I-5, especially during 

peak travel times, affecting the general public and emergency services such as fire, police, and ambulance 

services. Permitted access points along the Point Defiance Bypass route occur at at-grade crossings, 

where there can be some public safety risk to pedestrians or unsafe traffic movements. Currently, there 

are some locations where pedestrians cross the tracks illegally, and not all at-grade rail crossings are 

improved with crossing areas. There have been two accidents in the Point Defiance Bypass route in the 

last 12 years at intersections when automobiles were driven through the closed intersection when a train 

was passing. 

A low-income person is defined as an 

individual whose household income 

falls below the federal poverty 

guidelines, as defined by the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services. For 2011, the federal 

poverty guideline for a household of 

four was $22,350. 

A minority is an individual who 

identifies themselves as Black; 

Hispanic; Asian American; or 

American Indian/Alaskan Native. 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐39	

Source: Tacoma 2010 and Lakewood 2011 

Figure 11. Tacoma and Lakewood Neighborhoods 

 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐40	 Environmental	Assessment	

The neighborhoods within the study area currently experience noise from train mounted horns on Tacoma 

Rail freight trains and wayside horns at intersections from Freighthouse Square to Bridgeport Way 

Southwest. 20 

Economics. The unemployment rate in Pierce County is 9.6 percent compared to 9.0 percent for 

Washington, and 9.3 percent for the US (ESD-WA 2011). Economic trends show that Pierce County is 

expected to continue to grow in population and economic activity into the future at modest rates. 

Government, including JBLM, is a major employer in Pierce County, and the planned increase in 

personnel stationed at JBLM would likely continue the growth trend. 

According to the Pierce County Assessor-Treasurer, property values have declined county-wide with an 

average value decline from 2010 to 2011 of about 7 percent for residential and commercial properties 

(Pierce County 2011). A review of real estate market information indicates there is still a depressed real 

estate market with foreclosures and short sales dragging prices down, along with poor consumer 

confidence (Realty Times 2011, News Tribune 2011). However, there are indications that property values 

and sales could trend upward in 2012. Generally older stock houses (pre-1950s) without a view of Puget 

Sound were priced lowest, with newer houses, those with views of the Puget Sound, and historic homes 

being priced higher. 

Public Services and Facilities. As shown in Figure 15, within the study area, there are 26 public and 

private schools in three school districts, several medical facilities, two hospitals, 11 recreational facilities, 

and two facilities for disadvantaged people in the study area. There are 52 religious facilities and four 

cemeteries. Pierce Transit and Sound Transit provide public transportation services. Public services and 

utilities in the study area are further described in Section 4.14, Public Services, Utilities, and Safety and 

the Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report (Appendix P, page 15). 

Environmental Justice

Census tract data from the 2010 Census was used to assess minority and income characteristics in the 

study area (for the Puget Sound route and Point Defiance Bypass route), which were then compared to 

statistics for Pierce County as a whole. This comparison of data allows for the identification of areas that 

may have a high concentration of minority or low-income residents, the first step in an Environmental 

Justice evaluation. A summary of this analysis is presented below; the Socioeconomic and Environmental 

Justice Discipline Report (Appendix N, page 21) provides additional information. 

Minority. The population in the Point Defiance Bypass portion of the study area reflects a greater 

diversity of race, ethnicity, and income than either the existing Puget Sound route or Pierce County 

(Table 13). High percentages of minority populations relative to Pierce County are noted on Figure 12 as 

areas with greater than 60 percent minority populations in the Lakeview, South End, Eastside 

neighborhoods. High percentages of low-income populations (greater than 40 percent) relative to Pierce 

County include portions of the Tillicum/Woodbrook neighborhoods and downtown Tacoma (Figure 13). 

Limited English Proficiency. Proficiency in English was reviewed for the study areas to gauge LEP 

populations. The data indicates that the LEP populations were not concentrated in specific areas within 

the study areas. There are more LEP populations in the Build Alternative study area. The populations of 

people with disabilities and the elderly in the study areas are similar to county-wide statistics. 

 

20 Wayside horns have been installed at intersections from Freighthouse Square to Bridgeport Way Southwest, such that noisier 

train-mounted horns need no longer be sounded for this section of the Point Defiance Bypass route. Sounder train noise has been

addressed during environmental review and construction. Sound Transit conducted a noise analysis in conformance with FTA’s 

methodology and requirements and no noise impacts requiring mitigation were identified. (USDOT/ST 2002). 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐41	

Table 13. Population and Race/Ethnicity Statistics21

Point

Defiance

Bypass

Route

Point

Defiance

Bypass

Route (%)

Puget Sound

Route

Puget Sound

Route (%)

Pierce

County

Pierce

County (%)

White 66,824 59.6 98,376 74.7 590,040 74.2 

Black or African 

American 14,567 13.0 10,079 8.1 53,998 6.8 

American Indian and 

Alaska Native 2,268 2.2 1,971 1.7 10,879 1.4 

Asian 8,426 7.2 7,633 5.8 47,501 6.0 

Native Hawaiian and 

other Pacific Islander 2,445 2.2 1,053 0.9 10,588 1.3 

Two or More Races 10,274 8.8 8,510 6.5 54,347 6.8 

Some Other Race 7,457 6.9 2,895 2.4 27,872 3.5 

Total Hispanic or 

Latino22 17,453 16.2 10,305 7.9 72,849 9.2 

Total Population23 112,261 100.0 130,517 100.0 795,225 100.0 

Low-Income. Table 14 shows persons below the poverty level for the Puget Sound route, the Point 

Defiance Bypass route, and Pierce County. The data indicates that for persons living below the poverty 

level, the Puget Sound route study area is similar to Pierce County as a whole. The census tracts 

comprising the Point Defiance Bypass route have a greater concentration of persons at or below the 

poverty level when compared to Pierce County. Figure 13 maps the census tracts where the greatest 

concentrations of persons at or below the poverty level are located. There are several areas in the Point 

Defiance Bypass study area with higher percentages of low-income households south of the Sound 

Transit Lakewood Station. The Tillicum and Woodbrook neighborhood areas also have a higher 

percentage and a greater density of low-income households, on either side of I-5. The Puget Sound route 

has a low percentage of low-income households and no communities that would be considered EJ 

communities. 

Table 14. Poverty Status24

Area

Puget Sound

Route

Point Defiance

Bypass Route

Pierce

County

Population for Whom Poverty Status is Determined 130,039 110,408 748,122 

Living Below Poverty Level 17,600 21,883 86,468 

Living Below Poverty Level (%) 13.5% 19.8% 12% 

Additional information regarding affected environment is in Appendix N (page 21). 

 

21 2010 100% Data Tables (Block Group; P7) 

22 Total population of Hispanic or Latino for which races were tallied 23 Total populations, not Hispanic or Latino for which races were tallied 

24 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (Census Tract) 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐42	 Environmental	Assessment	

Figure 12. Minority Populations by Census Block 

 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐43	

Figure 13. Poverty by Census Block 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐44	 Environmental	Assessment	

4.12.3 Environmental Consequences – Socioeconomics and Environmental

Justice

4.12.3.1 No Build Alternative – Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Minor maintenance and repair activities along the Puget Sound route would not affect socioeconomic and 

EJ conditions. Existing socioeconomic and EJ conditions would persist under the No Build Alternative. 

4.12.3.2 Build Alternative – Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Construction Effects		

Socioeconomics

The Build Alternative would have effects to neighborhoods and businesses adjacent to the railroad 

corridor during construction. Effects would include localized increases in noise and air emissions from 

construction activities. Localized traffic circulation and accessibility to neighborhoods and businesses 

would be affected by proposed improvements at at-grade crossings. The Build Alternative would affect 

access to some public services adjacent to, or accessed via at-grade crossings, during construction. Access 

for emergency response services also would be affected, but would also be protected during construction. 

These effects are expected to be minor and would only occur temporarily for the duration of construction 

activities. 

There is no anticipated effect to local businesses due to disruption during construction. Most of the 

construction occurs within the railroad right-of-way, away from intersections. No additional rail right-ofway would be required to construct the project, although some additional parking lots would be acquired 

in Tacoma, to provide additional parking for the Project in the vicinity of Freighthouse Square. FRA and 

WSDOT would develop a traffic control plan that minimizes effects during peak travel times, and 

maintain access to businesses. Further, WSDOT would coordinate with Tacoma Rail to assure continued 

freight access during construction. 

Construction employment expected for the Build Alternative would be small and specialized, so there 

may be a slight benefit for employment and gross income during construction due to housing, food, and 

entertainment expenditures by the crew. This benefit would be temporary. There is no anticipated effect 

to local businesses due to disruption during construction. Most of the construction occurs within the 

railroad right-of-way, away from intersections. 

Environmental Justice

The construction activities associated with the Build Alternative, as described above, would affect lowincome and minority populations in the study area. These effects are expected to be temporary and limited 

to the duration of construction activities. No construction is planned for the Puget Sound route, so no 

construction related effects would occur in this area. Therefore, no disproportionately high or adverse 

effect on EJ populations would result from construction of the project and the project meets the 

requirements of Executive Order 12898 and the USDOT Environmental Justice Order, as it is supported 

by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. 

Additional information regarding construction effects is in Appendix N (page 35). 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐45	

Operational Effects		

Socioeconomics

Community Characteristics. The Build Alternative would not cause a direct change in the 

demographics, land use patterns, neighborhoods, or other related community characteristics. The Build 

Alternative would continue to use the existing railroad right-of-way, which was constructed in 1873 and 

1891, and has been in service since. When compared to conditions without the Project (No Build), 

operation of the Build Alternative would not alter community characteristics. 

Community Connectivity and Cohesion. The increased number of trains (14 additional train crossings 

per day in addition to up to 18 Sounder trains) under the Build Alternative would reduce connectivity 

during train crossings of local roads; however upgrades to the intersections and signaling would overall 

maintain or improve traffic flow; therefore, improving connectivity compared to the No Build 

Alternative. Intersection and signal improvements would improve connectivity and safety for pedestrians, 

bicyclists and vehicles as well as improve traffic flow for some intersections, which is more fully 

discussed in Section 4.3 (Transportation). The Build Alternative would have minor effects to emergency 

service vehicles, public access and safety as a result of increased train traffic on track intersecting local 

roads. Institution of the Operation Lifesaver program, as discussed in Section 4.14, Public Services, 

Utilities, and Safety, would help reduce this effect. 

The Tillicum, Woodbrook, and Nyanza neighborhoods would continue to experience some isolation 

because of the lack of existing non-vehicular pathways and trails. The operation of the Project may 

increase residents’ feelings of isolation in a few neighborhoods during train pass-bys, which would be 

very short in duration. Upgrades to the intersections and signaling would overall maintain or improve 

traffic flow; therefore, improving connectivity and safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles as well 

as improve traffic flow for some intersections. Therefore, with the Project and the proposed traffic 

improvements, community connectivity would experience a minor benefit. 

While there would be increased train noise levels as Amtrak trains are added to the corridor, the noise 

from train pass-bys would not be the most significant new source of noise. With the project, there would 

be wayside horns added from Lakewood to Nisqually, like those installed with the Sound Transit 

extension of service to Lakewood. Wayside horns have a much lower noise effect than train-mounted 

horns. Although there would be an increase in noise levels, the noise analysis demonstrates that the noise 

level effects to sensitive noise receptors would be moderate. There would be a corollary benefit from the 

use of wayside horns, which would be that freight trains from Lakewood to Tacoma would no longer 

sound their train mounted horns through intersections equipped with wayside horns, which would reduce 

this particular source of noise in the communities. There would be no effect in community cohesion due 

to noise. 

Economics. Economic effects would be associated with property values of adjacent residential and 

business properties. Property values tend to increase in the vicinity of stations and decrease for properties 

located adjacent to tracks, however the findings on decreased property value are not conclusive (Rudick 

2001). The Project is not anticipated to affect property values given that the rail corridor already exists, is 

used for freight and commuter service, and measures to minimize or eliminate noise and vibration would 

be implemented by the Project. Operation of the Project would result in a minor benefit to the limited 

freight operations due to safety improvements at crossings, and the replaced rail infrastructure at the 

southern end. Tacoma Rail may gain improved access to Tacoma suppliers. No additional freight traffic is 

anticipated. The use of the corridor by freight is negotiated through multiple operating agreements with 

the rail owners, Sound Transit, Tacoma Rail, and BNSF. Freight movements are independent of the 

Sound Transit and Amtrak operations along the Point Defiance Bypass route. There would be no change 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐46	 Environmental	Assessment	

to the operation of freight trains on the Point Defiance Bypass route under the Build Alternative. Tacoma 

Rail and BNSF would continue to operate as many as two trains per day or as few as two trains per week. 

BNSF would continue to operate intermittent freight trains on the Point Defiance Bypass route to serve 

military transportation needs at JBLM. 

Public Services. No public services would be displaced by the Project and would continue to be available 

to individuals in the study area. Operational effects would be similar for all the public service sectors, 

including schools, emergency services, access to medical centers and government offices, and transit. The 

most common effect is intersection traffic delays due to the addition of the Amtrak service, which could 

delay public services, including school bus service. Additional information on this effect is presented in 

Section 4.3 (Transportation), Section 4.14, Public Services, Utilities, and Safety. 

Additional information regarding operational effects is in Appendix N (page 35). 

Environmental Justice		

FRA and WSDOT evaluated the environmental effects of the Project to determine whether the anticipated 

effects would be experienced differently for Environmental Justice populations than by the community as 

a whole. Each environmental descriptor considered in this EA was reviewed for potential disproportionate 

effects on Environmental Justice populations, and following that evaluation, vibration and noise were 

identified as those areas with the potential to affect Environmental Justice populations. The findings are 

presented below. 

Two sites where potential vibration effects would be above the FTA vibration impact criteria of 80 VdB 

are also identified as areas with a high percentage of minority/ethnic and low-income populations. Site 3 

is located at the south end of Kline Street Southwest and Site 11 is located on the south side of Union 

Avenue Southwest. These populations would experience minor vibration effects under the Build 

Alternative. Additional impacts resulting from a 3 VdB or more increase over the existing vibration levels 

in the corridor shared with Sound Transit Sounder service (Lakewood Station to TR Junction) were 

predicted at Sites 2, 4, 5 and 10. These four sites also exhibit a high percentage of minority/ethnic 

populations. 

Minority/ethnic and low-income populations would also experience moderate project related noise effects 

at two noise monitoring sites. Moderate noise impacts are predicted at Site 6M and Site 16N. Site 6M is 

located near the at-grade railway crossing on 108th Street Southwest, just east of the intersection of 108th

Street Southwest and Lakewood Drive Southwest in the City of Lakewood. Site 16N is located near the 

at-grade railway crossing on Bridgeport Way Southwest, just north of the intersection of Bridgeport Way 

Southwest and Pacific Highway Southwest in the City of Lakewood. Both sites exhibit a high percentage 

of minority/ethnic and low-income population. 

The transfer of passenger rail service from the existing BNSF main line route to the proposed route may 

decrease noise, and to a lesser extent traffic delays, along the existing BNSF main line route. These 

effects may result in a negligible benefit to persons living along the Puget Sound Route. 

The effects described above would affect low-income and minority/ethnic populations, however the 

effects would not be appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the effect on non-minority or 

non-low-income populations in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, no disproportionately high or 

adverse effect on EJ populations would result from the Project and the Project meets the provisions of 

Executive Order 12898, as it is supported by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. 

Additional information regarding operational effects is in Appendix N (page 35). 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐47	

4.12.4 Minimization Measures – Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

Although the Build Alternative would not have a significant effect on socioeconomics and EJ requiring 

mitigation, effects associated with construction and operational activities would be reduced by 

minimization measures which are summarized in the topical areas. See project measures for air quality, 

noise and vibration, transportation, hazardous materials, and public services, utilities, and safety. 

4.13 Land Use

4.13.1 Study Area and Methodology – Land Use

The study area includes the existing railroad right-of-way along the Point Defiance Bypass route and land 

uses within 500 feet of each side of the route, including the station relocation at Freighthouse Square. 

Land uses were identified in the context of existing and planned land uses and zoning, Shoreline 

Management Act and Critical Area Ordinance designations, resource lands (agricultural, timber, and 

mineral), and development trends. Land uses were evaluated by comparing effects of the alternatives on 

existing land uses, regulations, and trends and determining if the alternatives would result in more than a 

moderate effect due to incompatibility with adjacent land uses and/or inconsistency with land use plans, 

and relocation and displacement of a substantial number of housing units or commercial uses. Park and 

recreation facilities were also identified along the Point Defiance Bypass route. 

Section 6(f)(3) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA)provides protection for parks 

that were acquired or developed with LWCFA grants. Because parks and recreation areas often receive 

LWCFA assistance, Section 6(f) applies to any federal agency action. Because no acquisition of parks, 

recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl sites or property is proposed as a part of the Project, Section 6(f) 

provisions do not apply to the Project. Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 (49 USC 303) is discussed 

in Section 4.11. 

4.13.2 Affected Environment – Land Use

The Puget Sound route portion of the study area includes a mix of land uses, including park, residential, 

forestry, shoreline, wildlife refuges, industrial, and open areas. The Point Defiance Bypass route portion 

of the study area is an existing railroad corridor, approximately two-thirds of which are located within or 

adjacent to the incorporated cities of Tacoma, Lakewood, and DuPont. Within this corridor are industrial, 

commercial, residential (single and multifamily), transportation and utility, vacant, and other land uses 

such as open space, recreation, and educational (Figure 14). An estimated 25-30 percent of land within 

the urban-developed portion of the study area is identified for redevelopment according to land use plans. 

The remainder lies within an unincorporated area of Pierce County, the majority of which is occupied by 

JBLM and Camp Murray National Guard military complexes. There are no resource lands25 in the study 

areas. 

 

25 Resource lands include those lands used or have physical characteristics that make them ideal for agricultural, forestry or 

mineral extraction purposes. 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐48	 Environmental	Assessment	

Figure 14. Existing Land Uses –Incorporated Areas along the Point Defiance Bypass Route 

Throughout the existing rail corridor, several adjacent land uses occupy portions of the railroad right-ofway with parking lots, outside storage, fences, and two buildings. Some occupied areas have leases with 

the railroad right-of-way owner. A 2010 inventory identified approximately 50 right-of-way 

encroachments by commercial or industrial uses. All of these encroachments have been resolved.26 

There are 21 park and recreational resources within the study area. Additional information regarding 

affected environment is in Appendix N (page 17). 

4.13.3 Environmental Consequences – Land Use

4.13.3.1 No Build Alternative – Land Use

Minor maintenance and upgrades to the Puget Sound track would not affect surrounding land use. 

Existing conditions and land use would persist under the No Build Alternative along the Point Defiance 

Bypass Route. 

4.13.3.2 Build Alternative – Land Use

Construction Effects		

Construction activities associated with the Build Alternative would not displace any existing land uses or 

acquire additional property aside from potential acquisitions adjacent to Freighthouse Square and for 

parking in that vicinity. The Project would not affect park or recreation resources (including historic sites, 

see Section 4.10, Cultural Resources). Additional information regarding construction effects are described 

in Appendix O (page 67). 

Operational Effects		

Overall, the Build Alternative is consistent with adopted land use policies. Land use adjacent to the Point 

Defiance Bypass route would be affected by the increased speeds and more frequent trains traveling 

through the communities and the potential effect on future development, however the rail corridor would 

continue to be compatible with surrounding land uses. Effects of the Build Alternative to adjacent land 

use would be minor. The Project would not affect park or recreation resources (including historic sites, 

 

26 Resolution of encroachments occurred as part of ongoing negotiation between ST and property owners, in collaboration with 

the WSDOT rail program. 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐49	

see Section 4.10, Cultural Resources). Additional information regarding operational effects is in 

Appendix O (page 65).

4.13.4 Minimization Measures – Land Use

No adverse effects to land use would occur as part of the Build Alternative; therefore, no minimization 

measures are proposed. 

4.14 Public Services, Utilities, and Safety

4.14.1 Study Area and Methodology – Public Services, Utilities, and Safety

The study area is a half mile on either side of the Puget Sound route, Point Defiance Bypass route and the 

station relocation at Freighthouse Square. Multiple sources were used to collect information on the 

location and routing of public service providers and utilities. These sources include publically available 

data and mapping, 2010 Census data, and information obtained from local jurisdictions. 

4.14.2 Affected Environment – Public Services, Utilities, and Safety

Public services include police, fire, schools, churches, recreational facilities, and medical facilities. 

Utilities can be provided by public or private entities and include water, sewer, storm drainage, electricity, 

natural gas, and telecommunications. In the study area corridor for the Build Alternative, there are 26 

public and private schools within the study area from the 3 school districts: Tacoma, Clover Park, and 

Steilacoom Historical. All three school districts provide busing through the study area. There are 5 

medical facilities, 2 hospitals (Saint Clare Hospital and Madigan Army Medical Center), 11 recreational 

facilities, and 2 facilities for disadvantaged people in the study area. Fifty-two religious facilities were 

identified, as were four cemeteries in the study area. Pierce Transit and Sound Transit provide public 

transportation services. Police services are provided by the City of Tacoma, City of Lakewood, and City 

of DuPont. The Puyallup Tribe police provide police services for the tribal properties. Fire services are 

provided by the City of Tacoma, West Pierce Fire and Rescue, and the City of DuPont. JBLM provides 

police and fire services on military installations only. The 10 panels represented in Figure 15 show the 

public facilities in the study area. 

Private and public utilities in the study area include water, wastewater, stormwater, telephone, cable, 

internet, electricity, and gas. Solid waste facilities and services are provided by the City of Tacoma, City 

of Lakewood, City of DuPont, and JBLM. The facilities and services include solid waste handling, 

recycling, and yard debris, and household hazardous waste facility. 

Over the 5 year period from October 2006 through September 2011, three at-grade crossing collisions 

have occurred between roadway vehicles and trains on the Puget Sound route and one on the Point 

Defiance Bypass route (http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/default.aspx). Additional information 

regarding affected environment is in Appendix P (page 15). 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐50	 Environmental	Assessment	

Figure 15. Public Facilities in the Study Area (Panels 1-10) 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐51	
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐52	 Environmental	Assessment	
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐53	
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐54	 Environmental	Assessment	
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐55	
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐56	 Environmental	Assessment	
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐57	
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐58	 Environmental	Assessment	
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐59	
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐60	 Environmental	Assessment	

4.14.3 Environmental Consequences – Public Services, Utilities, and Safety

4.14.3.1 No Build Alternative – Public Services, Utilities, and Safety

The public services and utilities in the study area would remain unchanged by the minor maintenance and 

repair activities associated with the No Build Alternative. Existing conditions and public services and 

utilities would persist under the No Build Alternative. 

Under the No Build Alternative, 3.6 accidents are anticipated for every million train crossings based on 

the expected number of average daily train crossings and predicted annual accident frequencies. 

4.14.3.2 Build Alternative – Public Services, Utilities, and Safety

Construction Effects

While construction of track upgrades along most of the corridor would have little or no effect on public 

services or safety, construction would cause traffic delays during intersection construction. Delays for 

emergency vehicles and school and public buses would be similar to typical construction-related traffic 

discussed in 4.3, Transportation. Potential utility conflicts and relocation needs have been identified from 

the Clover Creek Drive intersection to the southern terminus of the Point Defiance Bypass route. As part 

of construction, FRA and WSDOT would relocate, deepen, and/or harden utilities within the railroad 

right-of-way. Additional information regarding construction effects are detailed in Appendix P (page 37). 

Operational Effects

Operational effects would be similar for all the public service sectors, 

including schools, emergency services, access to medical centers and 

government offices, and transit. The most common effect is 

intersection traffic delays due to the addition of the Amtrak service. 

Traffic delays are anticipated to be minor as the intersections typically clear (time required to clear 

vehicles from the intersection after the train has passed) within one to two cycles of the traffic signal (or 

3-5 minutes during peak traffic hours), as described in 4.3, Transportation. Train or track malfunctions 

could cause an unanticipated intersection closure but these are not common, typically of short duration, 

and detours would be available. Relocation of the Tacoma Amtrak station to the Tacoma Dome at 

Freighthouse Square would have minor effects to public services or utilities related to the potential for 

increased traffic. 

No effects are anticipated for utilities as utility owners requiring access to buried or aerial utilities for 

maintenance and upgrades because access would be provided. 

FRA and WSDOT do not anticipate that the Project would increase trespass on rail right-of-way; however 

increased passenger rail traffic may cause more opportunities for trespassers on rail right-of-way to 

interact with trains, causing potential safety issues. In addition to state and federal safety requirements, 

the infrastructure owner is responsible for developing and implementing security procedures to reduce the 

likelihood of rail trespass. These security procedures implement and follow the BNSF Railway’s 

Transportation Security Administration: 24 Security Action Items flyer, 49 CFR 1580: TSA Rail 

Regulations Regarding Rail Security Sensitive Materials, Sound Transit’s Safety and Security Plan, and 

the system safety program plans for both BNSF Railway and Tacoma Rail. 

With the Build Alternative, 3.2 accidents for every million train crossings are anticipated. This accident 

rate would be a decrease in accidents from the No Build Alternative (3.6 accidents per million train 

At an average closure time of less 

than one minute per crossing, gates 

would be closed for less than 12 

minutes per day. 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐61	

crossings). The Build Alternative would also improve safety at several existing at-grade crossings by 

adding the following improvements: 

 Signage: “Do Not Stop On Tracks” signs would be installed at the crossings. 

 Wayside Horns: This automated warning system would be installed at rail/roadway at-grade crossings 

to warn people of an approaching train. 

 Median Barriers: Median barriers would be installed in the middle of the roadway approaching the 

railroad tracks to discourage vehicles from driving around the railroad crossing gates. 

 Sidewalks: Sidewalks provide an ADA-accessible route over the tracks. Additionally, tactile strips 

provided with the improvements alert the sight-impaired to changes ahead. 

 Pre-signals: Pre-signals control vehicle traffic approaching a railroad crossing and minimize queuing 

across the at-grade railroad crossing. 

The Build Alternative would also install more advanced signal controllers at North Thorne Lane 

Southwest, Berkeley Street Southwest, 41st Division Drive, and Barksdale Avenue. The more advanced 

signal controllers synchronize operations of nearby signals to reduce the likelihood of vehicles on the 

tracks. Additional information regarding operational effects is detailed in Appendix P (page 37). 

4.14.4 Minimization Measures – Public Services, Utilities, and Safety

Although the Build Alternative would not have a significant effect on public utilities, services, and safety 

requiring mitigation, effects associated with construction activities would be reduced by the following 

minimization measures: 

 FRA and WSDOT will coordinate and communicate with public service providers, including school 

districts, emergency service organizations, and agencies such as Sound Transit to ensure they are 

fully informed of construction progress and identify ways to minimize delays. 

 Coordination with utility owners to determine conflicts and determine a suitable resolution to avoid or 

minimize disruption. This would include coordination with the local fire department if there would be 

effects to fire suppression water and/or pressure. 

 Post construction schedules near affected crossings and provide the information to local newspapers 

for publication or to the local jurisdictions for distribution by mail to residents and businesses in the 

area. Project construction updates could also be posted on WSDOT’s project website. 

Minimization measures for potential traffic delays and access issues are discussed in Section 4.3 

(Transportation). 

In terms of safety, FRA and WSDOT would continue the Operation Lifesaver program training on track 

safety for community members and continue to work with communities to ensure there are safe routes 

that avoid the illegal use of the railroad right-of-way for pedestrians and non-vehicular travel. 

Infrastructure owners would continue to develop and implement security procedures to reduce the 

likelihood of rail trespass. 

4.15 Energy

4.15.1 Study Area and Methodology – Energy		

The study area for this analysis includes the Puget Sound and Point Defiance Bypass routes and the 

station relocation at Freighthouse Square. Construction energy use was calculated using the California 

Department of Transportation (CalTrans) methodology that correlates project cost information to project 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐62	 Environmental	Assessment	

energy use. Operational energy use was estimated from train fuel efficiency information prepared as part 

of the PNWRC EA, combined with route distance through the Build Alternative. Motor vehicle and 

electrical energy were not included. 

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were derived from the energy use and based on emission factors from 

The Climate Registry’s General Reporting Protocol (GRP 2008). The GHG emissions analysis assumed 

all construction energy would be provided by diesel and used the diesel CO2 emission factors provided by 

The Climate Registry’s General Reporting Protocol (GRP 2008). Nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) 

emissions were assumed to be a similar proportion as for a highway project and estimated to be 5 percent 

of the total CO2 emissions; they were converted and reported as CO2 equivalents (CO2e). Using CO2e 

allows various GHG emissions to be reported as a single unit. 

4.15.2 Affected Environment – Energy

A passenger train consumes about 55,000 British thermal units (BTUs) of energy per vehicle mile; in 

comparison, a typical automobile consumes about 5,517 BTUs of energy per vehicle mile. The energy for 

a passenger train is in the form of diesel fuel, and the average fuel economy of a passenger train is 

approximately 0.7 miles per gallon (mpg). Information regarding current trip distance on the Puget Sound 

Route, fuel and energy use, and GHG emissions are shown in Table 15. Additional information regarding 

affected environment is detailed in Appendix Q (page 13). 

Table 15. Existing Emissions

Train Travel Through the Study Area (via Puget

Sound route)		 2009 – Existing

Daily Amtrak Cascades trips per day 8 

Daily Amtrak Coast Starlight trips per day 2 

Distance Through the Project Area (miles) 26.5 

Total Miles Amtrak Travel Through the Project Area (miles) 265 

Fuel Use at 0.7 mpg 186 (gallons) 

Energy Use (Mbtu*) 57 

GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 4.2 

* Mbtu = one million British Thermal Units 

4.15.3 Environmental Consequences – Energy

4.15.3.1 No Build Alternative – Energy

Currently, there are 4 daily Amtrak Cascades round trips and 1 daily Coast Starlight round trip for a total 

of 10 trips. Under the No Build Alternative, the 10 trips travel 265 miles daily, resulting in 407 gallons of 

diesel fuel per day and 4.2 CO2e of GHG emissions per day (Table 16). The energy required in the project 

corridor would remain unchanged. Existing conditions, energy, and GHGs would persist under the No 

Build Alternative. 

4.15.3.2 Build Alternative – Energy

Construction Effects		

Energy is required for construction of the Build Alternative; the analysis included both on-site emissions 

from operating construction equipment and emissions produced off-site to create and transport 

construction materials. The majority of construction emissions are from fuel combustion from equipment 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐63	

used on-site. Construction energy requirements are estimated to be 539,000 Mbtu and GHG emissions are 

estimated to be 41,000 CO2e. Additional information regarding construction effects is detailed in 

Appendix Q: Energy Discipline Report (page 14). 

Operational Effects		

The Build Alternative would add 2 daily Amtrak Cascades round trips for a total of 14 daily trips between 

Seattle and Portland. Table 16 compares the energy and GHG effects of the alternatives. The Build 

Alternative would produce slightly less total emissions (3.3 CO2e versus 4.2 CO2e) and would 

accommodate two additional round trips per day. The Build Alternative would result in an annual 

reduction of 321 CO2e when compared to the No Build Alternative because the proposed alignment is 

shorter and allows for more energy efficient travel than the current alignment. Additional information 

regarding operational effects is detailed in Appendix Q: Energy Discipline Report (page 14). 

Table 16. Alternatives Operation Comparison

Travel from Seattle to Portland

2009 2018

Existing No Build Build

Amtrak Cascades Trips Daily 8.0 8.0 12.0 

Amtrak Coast Starlight Trips Daily 2.0 2.0 2.0 

Distance through Project Area (miles) 26.5 26.5 19.5 

Total Distance Daily (miles) 265.0 265.0 273.0 

Diesel Fuel Use Daily (gal) 407.0 407.0 322.0 

GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) Daily 4.2 4.2 3.3 

Annual Difference [Build Minus No Build] (MT CO2e ) -321.0 

4.15.4 Minimization Measures – Energy

Although the Build Alternative would not have a significant effect on energy requiring mitigation, 

measures that reduce energy use would also reduce GHG emissions during construction and would 

include: 

 Limited equipment idling. 

 Encouraging construction workers to carpool. 

 Locating staging areas near work sites. 

 Scheduling the delivery of materials during off-peak hours to allow trucks to travel to the site with 

less congestion and at fuel-efficient speeds. 

Operationally, additional fuel efficiency would be realized with the use of the new models of locomotives 

that are 10 to 12 percent more energy efficient than currently used locomotives. Therefore, it is assumed 

that new passenger locomotives purchased in the next several years would be at least 10 percent more fuel 

efficient than the existing locomotives. 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐64	 Environmental	Assessment	

4.16 Indirect and Cumulative Effects

4.16.1 Indirect Effects

4.16.1.1 No Build Alternative – Indirect Effects

The No Build Alternative would have no indirect environmental effects. The existing conditions in the 

study area would remain unchanged. 

4.16.1.2 Build Alternative – Indirect Effects

Study Area and Methodology		

FRA and WSDOT included the consideration of potential indirect effects along with direct effects 

throughout all of the discipline studies. As described in the NEPA implementing regulations, indirect 

effects occur as a result of a project, but take place later in time or are further removed in distance from 

the project. “Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced 

changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water 

and other natural systems, including ecosystems.”27 The study area for each resource was used to assess 

the potential for indirect effects on each resource. Analysts also sought regional data and studies prepared 

by Pierce County, JBLM and the Puget Sound Regional Council. The method for assessing the potential 

for indirect effect on each resource was similar to the methods for assessing direct affects described in the 

corresponding discipline reports. 

Indirect Effects Findings

The Project is located within an existing rail corridor and urbanized area. FRA and WSDOT considered 

whether the Project would facilitate an increase in growth or development in the study area. FRA and 

WSDOT determined that the project is not likely to directly or indirectly affect growth or land use 

patterns in these locations. As there would be no new Amtrak stops within the corridor, individuals 

utilizing passenger trains would continue to travel through the study area to their destinations, in the same 

way as the current Amtrak inter-city passenger train service. Generally, inter-city passenger rail transports 

passengers between well-defined urban centers, rather than other commuter rail or mass-transit modes 

which may transport passengers from an urban center to suburban areas. Growth and development in the 

study area would occur as forecasted and planned by each jurisdiction regardless of Project 

implementation as transportation is only one of the many complex factors that affect and influence the 

location and extent of urban and rural growth (see Land Use Discipline Report, Appendix O: Land Use 

Discipline Report). 

The Project uses an existing right-of-way rather than creating a new rail corridor. FRA and WSDOT did 

not identify any indirect effects from the proposed improvements to the rail line or the crossings. FRA 

and WSDOT also considered other features of the Project (such as utility improvements) to assess 

whether they may influence growth or indirectly facilitate other developments. 

FRA and WSDOT considered the potential indirect effects to all resource areas included in the affected 

environment sections of this EA and found that the only potential indirect effect tied to the Project is 

related to the relocation of the Tacoma Amtrak Station from Puyallup Avenue to Freighthouse Square. 

 

27 CEQ NEPA Regulation Section 1508.8 [40 C.F.R. § 1508.8.] 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐65	

The relocation of Amtrak services to Freighthouse Square28 may indirectly influence redevelopment near 

Freighthouse Square. The consolidation of passenger rail service in one station may strengthen 

Freighthouse Square’s role as a transportation center and may increase demand for retail services in the 

immediate vicinity to serve persons coming to or from Amtrak or switching to Sound Transit or other 

service. This could in turn attract public or private developers to invest in the area. Redevelopment would 

be consistent with existing land uses and would likely take place in the existing footprint of the vacant 

lots or as renovation of existing structures (see Land Use Discipline Report, Appendix O: Land Use 

Discipline Report). In this assessment of the potential indirect effect due to relocation the analysis 

considered the likely scale of future redevelopment. It was determined that any redevelopment would be 

minor because of the available building stock and zoning. FRA and WSDOT use the term “limited 

redevelopment” to qualify that major redevelopment is not anticipated as a result of the Amtrak station 

relocation. The redevelopment at Freighthouse Square would be consistent with local zoning and 

approved by state and local agencies, therefore it is unlikely to result in indirect effects to the following 

resources: air quality, noise and vibration, public services and utilities, or energy. The redevelopment at 

Freighthouse Square would not result in indirect effects to fish, wildlife and vegetation, geologic and 

soils, wetlands, or water resources because these resources are not present. Effects to hazardous materials, 

visual quality, land use, transportation and socioeconomic and environmental justice resources from the 

redevelopment at Freighthouse Square are described below. 

Hazardous Materials. The area surrounding Freighthouse Square is historically a heavy commercial and 

industrial area with several sites of concern (see Hazardous Materials Discipline Report, Appendix L: 

Hazardous Materials Discipline Report). If redevelopment were to occur at any sites of concern 

(Figure 8), coordination with Ecology would be required prior to construction to ensure any ground 

disturbance work is in compliance with established restrictions and regulations. Cleanup activities 

associated with redevelopment would benefit the environment and community. Thus the Project could 

lead to a beneficial indirect effect on hazardous materials. 

Visual Quality. The potential indirect effect on visual quality will be guided by existing zoning. Because 

of the City of Tacoma’s recent efforts to rehabilitate the area, it is likely that any redevelopment indirectly 

tied to station relocation would improve the visual quality of the area through renovation of deteriorating 

buildings or vacant lots. This could have a beneficial indirect effect on visual resources. 

Land Use. Any limited redevelopment near Freighthouse Square would occur in accordance with City of 

Tacoma land use zoning ordinances and plans. Indirect effects within the area may include new tax 

revenues and localized neighborhood revitalization. 

Transportation. Redevelopment near Freighthouse Square could attract additional vehicle or pedestrian 

traffic. Any changes to transportation facilities or services in the area would undergo review by local, 

state and/or regional transportation providers. WSDOT and FRA do not anticipate an adverse effect as a 

result of potential redevelopment. 

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice. The redevelopment near Freighthouse Square would 

generally take place in the existing footprint of vacant lots or renovating existing buildings and would not 

affect community characteristics, cohesion or connectivity. Construction could provide some short-term 

employment and commercial development could provide longer term jobs to community members in the 

study area. Environmental Justice communities in the vicinity of Freighthouse Square and could benefit 

from improved transportation access. Redevelopment could provide a minor beneficial indirect effect to 

Environmental Justice communities. 

 

28 WSDOT and FRA also considered the potential for indirect effects resulting from the vacation of the Puyallup Avenue Station. 

No primary or secondary businesses appear to depend on the Puyallup station, thus the relocation of Amtrak services to 

Freighthouse Square would not affect resources present, including economic resources. 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐66	 Environmental	Assessment	

4.16.1.3 Minimization Measures – Indirect Effects

No adverse indirect effects would occur as part of the Build Alternative; therefore, no minimization 

measures are proposed. 

4.16.2 Cumulative Effects

4.16.2.1 Study Area and Methodology		

Under NEPA, cumulative effects result from the incremental effects of the project when added to other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes 

the action. 

Past and present actions affecting environmental resources are reflected in the existing conditions of the 

study area. Reasonably foreseeable future actions include those that are being implemented or have been 

implemented recently, including planned and funded transportation improvements, and other local and 

regional infrastructure proposals. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively 

significant actions taking place over a period of time. 

For the cumulative effects analysis, FRA and WSDOT considered both a temporal (timeframe) and 

geographic, resource-specific study areas. In framing the historic and future context, analysts looked at 

the land use and transportation development patterns. The existing rail right-of-way was established in the 

late 1800s (American Lake in 1891, Prairie Lines in 1873) and I-5 was completed in the 1960s. WSDOT 

and FRA looked to the planning horizons used by local agencies in their comprehensive planning under 

the state Growth Management Act, JBLM and the “Grow the Army” Final EIS, and the Puget Sound 

Regional Council’s Vision 2040; all these planning horizons lay between 2020 and 2040. 

FRA and WSDOT used the same study area for each resource as identified in the discipline report 

assessing direct effects. Analysts also sought regional data and studies prepared by Pierce County, JBLM 

and the Puget Sound Regional Council. With regard to traffic congestion on I-5, FRA and WSDOT also 

considered Thurston County and through-traffic. See the Transportation and Land Use Discipline Reports 

(Appendix F: Traffic and Transportation Discipline Report and Appendix O: Land Use Discipline 

Report) for more information. 

In identifying and analyzing potential cumulative impacts FRA and WSDOT used joint guidance issued 

by WSDOT, FHWA Washington Division, and the EPA Region 10, entitled: Guidance on Preparing 

Cumulative Impact Analyses (2008) (Joint Guidance). The Joint Guidance outlines eight steps for 

identifying and assessing cumulative impacts: 

1. Identify the resources that may have cumulative impacts to consider in the analysis; 

2. Define the study area and timeframe for each affected resource; 

3. Describe the current status and historical context for each; 

4. Identify direct and the indirect impacts that may contribute to a cumulative impact; 

5. Identify other historic, current and reasonably foreseeable actions that may affect resources; 

6. Assess potential cumulative impacts to each resource; determine magnitude and significance; 

7. Report the results; and 

8. Assess and discuss potential mitigation issues for all adverse impacts. 

For the Project, FRA and WSDOT relied on the affected environment section of each of the discipline 

studies and several of the regional and local studies referenced in the Land Use Discipline Report 

(Appendix O: Land Use Discipline Report) to complete Joint Guidance Steps 1 through 5. Information 

provided in the affected environment and direct effects analysis helped to characterize the trend and 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐67	

current conditions. In assessing the potential for cumulative impacts, FRA and WSDOT used Joint 

Guidance Steps 5 through 8. The result of this assessment is summarized later in this section. 

FRA and WSDOT considered the potential for cumulative impacts to all resource areas analyzed in this 

EA. In addition, the measures to minimize direct effects of the Project were evaluated in making the 

cumulative effect determination. For example, temporary construction effects that are fully mitigated 

during construction are not likely to contribute to a cumulative effect. In general, the study focused on 

operational effects of the Project. 

In developing the list of reasonably foreseeable actions FRA and WSDOT applied the following criteria 

from the Joint Guidance: 

 Is the project included in a financially constrained plan (e.g., a capital improvement program). 

 Is it permitted or in the permit process? 

 How reasonable is it to assume that the project will be constructed? 

 Is the action identified as high priority? 

FRA and WSDOT examined Puget Sound Regional Council’s current program, which includes many 

preservation projects (also known as “state of good repair”) and the funded improvement projects in the 

state transportation improvement program (STIP). Reasonably foreseeable future projects are listed below 

(Table 17). 

Table 17: Transportation Related Projects – Current and Reasonably Foreseeable

Pedestrian and Transit Improvements Responsible Entity

Dower Elementary Safe Route to School – Construct curb, gutter and sidewalk, flashing pedestrian 

signal, and two marked crosswalks on John Dower Rd. 

Lakewood 

ADA Service – Provide complementary ADA service for disabled patrons in Pierce County Pierce Transit 

Lakewood Station Connection – Construct pedestrian crossing of rail road tracks, bus stop 

facilities, and bus turn around. 

Lakewood 

Tacoma/Lakewood Commuter Rail Project – Design and construct stations, parking, bus/transfer, 

pedestrian, and bike facilities; grade separated crossing at Pacific Avenue and South 26th Street; 

complete environmental documentation. 

Sound Transit 

Tacoma Link Expansion Project – FTA Small Starts alternatives analysis for Link service 

expansion in downtown Tacoma, conceptual engineering and NEPA Scoping. 

Sound Transit 

Local Roadway Improvements Responsible Entity

Gravelly Lake Drive – Construct curb, gutter and sidewalk, street lighting, upgrade signals and 

ADA ramps on both sides of Gravelly Lake Drive between 100th Street and Bridgeport Way. 

Lakewood 

Madigan Access Improvement – Construct roadway, bridge, ramp and signal modifications to 

improve safety from Berkeley Street to Union Avenue Southwest 

Lakewood 

Bridgeport Way – Steilacoom Blvd. to 83rd Street Southwest – Widen to provide continuous twoway left-turn lane, street lighting, bicycle facilities, storm drainage and landscaping. Signalize 86th

Street intersection. 

Lakewood 

Steilacoom Blvd. – Farwest Drive to 87th Avenue Southwest – Upgrade traffic signal and improve 

intersection lighting. Upgrade cross-walk and trim vegetation to improve sight distance. 

Lakewood 

Lakewood Traffic Signal Upgrades Phase 3 – Fiber Interconnect – Provide fiber cable interconnect 

to upgrade signals for ITS. 

Lakewood 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐68	 Environmental	Assessment	

Table 17: Transportation Related Projects – Current and Reasonably Foreseeable

Camp Murray Gate Relocation to Portland Avenue – Extend the existing sidewalk to Harry Todd 

Park, re-route traffic and improve vehicle movements and safety through the North Thorne Lane 

SW, Berkeley Street SW intersections with Union Avenue SW, the current railroad right-of-way, 

and Interstate 5. 

Lakewood 

JBLM: Proposed Wharf Road Access Control Point – Construct a new access control point off the 

Steilacoom-DuPont Road into Lewis North to reduce traffic flows at or near existing access control 

points, allow for an alternative truck traffic access, and allow for alternative access options to avoid 

delays during maintenance interruptions. 

JBLM 

Interstate 5 – Joint Base Lewis-McChord Area Congestion Management Project: SR 510 to SR 

512 – Increase capacity on I-5 with traffic management strategies, operational enhancements, 

HOV/express bypass lanes at ramp meters, rebuilding key connections within JBLM to improve the 

distribution of traffic, improving military gate access points and signals at local intersections. 

JBLM 

Regional Roadway Improvements Responsible Entity

I-5 DuPont to Lakewood Corridor Planning – Joint Base Lewis-McChord and cities of Lakewood 

and DuPont in coordination are submitting grants for the Interchange Justification Report and 

NEPA. $1,001,000 (including $630,000 in federal funds, balance in state/local funds) 

WSDOT 

I-5 Fort Lewis Congestion Fiber Optics – Extend fiber optic cable from Olympia to Thorne Lane to 

enable ITS project intertie. 

WSDOT 

I-5 and I-705 and Railroad Crossing SB Seismic Retrofit – Retrofit southbound bridge to meet 

current earthquake standards. 

WSDOT 

I-5 and I-705 and Railroad Crossing NB Seismic Retrofit – Retrofit northbound bridge to meet 

current earthquake standards. 

WSDOT 

I-5 M Street to Portland Avenue Northbound Widening and Bridges – Add NB and SB HOV lanes 

to I-5 from M Street to Portland Avenue to I-5. Demolish and reconstruct Pacific Avenue, McKinley 

Avenue and L Street overcrossings. 

WSDOT 

I-5 M Street Bridge Seismic Retrofit – Retrofit bridge to meet current earthquake standards. WSDOT 

I-5 Port of Tacoma Rd. to King Co. Line HOV Lanes – Construct HOV lanes from MP 136.61 to MP 

139.50 (completed project). 

WSDOT 

I-5 Portland Avenue to Port of Tacoma Rd Northbound HOV – Construct NB HOV lanes, new 

northbound bridges across the Puyallup River, begins work to reconstruct I-5/SR 167 interchange 

and replaces I-5/Portland interchange. 

WSDOT 

I-5 Portland Avenue to Port of Tacoma Rd. Southbound HOV – Construct SB HOV lanes, new 

southbound bridges across the Puyallup River, and completes work on the I-5/SR 167 interchange. 

WSDOT 

I-5 SR 16 Interchange: Rebuild Interchange – Replaces the Nalley Valley bridge, reconstructs 

ramps and structures. Prepares I-5 and SR 16 for HOV lanes (completed project). 

WSDOT 

I-5 SR 16 Eastbound Nalley Valley HOV – Reconstruct eastbound Nalley Valley interchange, 

ramps, and structures. Prepares for HOV lanes on I-5 and SR 16. 

WSDOT 

I-5 SR 16 Interchange: South to North Ramp Seismic Retrofit – Retrofit south to north ramp bridge 

to meet current earthquake standards. 

WSDOT 

I-5 Vicinity Center Drive – Realign Center Drive and change access control to improve JBLM 

egress. 

WSDOT 

SR 162 Puyallup River Bd. Replacement – Construct new bridge to replace existing structurally 

deficient bridge. 

WSDOT 

SR 512 108th Street East to SR 167 Install Cable Barrier – Upgrade existing 3-cable median barrier 

to 4-cable median barrier. 

WSDOT 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐69	

Table 17: Transportation Related Projects – Current and Reasonably Foreseeable

Regional Rail Improvements Responsible Entity

Vancouver – Rail Yard Bypass Track – Construct new bypass tracks in rail yard to allow passenger 

trains to bypass congestion caused by freight trains and new vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle bridge 

overcrossing. 

FRA / WSDOT 

Kelso Martins Bluff – Toteff Siding Extension - Extend existing siding one and construct 

overcrossing at Toteff Road. 

FRA / WSDOT 

Kelso Martins Bluff – New Siding – Construct new and upgrade existing siding track to allow freight 

trains to move on and off of main line at higher speeds. 

FRA / WSDOT 

Kelso Martins Bluff – Kelso to Longview Junction – Construct new track segment and upgrade 

existing track to allow freight and passenger trains to pass each other and reduce congestion. 

FRA / WSDOT 

Seattle – King Street Track Upgrade – Reconfigure main line tracks accessing King Street Station 

to improve passenger train access and increase service for Amtrak, Sound Transit, and BNSF. 

FRA / WSDOT 

Everett – Storage Track – Construct two new departure/receiving tracks parallel to existing delta 

Yard tracks to eliminate passenger/freight conflicts. 

FRA / WSDOT 

Corridor Reliability Upgrades (South) – Clean ditches and grading to improve drainage, cleaning 

and replacing ballast, replace ties and resurface rail as needed to improve track reliability and 

improve travel time. 

FRA / WSDOT 

Advanced Wayside Signal System – Upgrade advanced signal systems components at all control 

points, sidings and turnouts between the US-Canada border and Vancouver, WA. 

FRA / WSDOT 

Source: WSDOT 2012a, PSRC 2011, and WSDOT 2012b 

Other projects that are on the horizon, though not on near-term fiscally constrained plans include the 

Cross-base Highway (SR 704) a new six-mile-long, multi-lane divided highway beginning at the I-5 

Thorne Lane Interchange at the west end, connecting to 176th Street at State Route 7 at the east end. This 

new alternate east-west route is designed to ease congestion on I-5, State Route 512, State Route 7 

and Spanaway Loop Road by providing a route through Joint Base Lewis-McChord. Environmental 

review and approval was completed by FHWA in 2004. Project 1, Spanaway Loop Road to SR 7 was 

completed in August 2009. The remainder of the project is currently suspended awaiting funding. 

Land use and development trends within the region and study area are summarized in the Land Use 

Discipline Report (Appendix O: Land Use Discipline Report). The expansion of JBLM includes 

numerous projects and projects as outlined in the Grow the Army FEIS and other documents. FRA and 

WSDOT carefully considered the prior studies related to the JBLM plans, and the comprehensive 

assessment conducted by the South Sound Military and Communities Partnership, JBLM Growth 

Coordination Plan (US Army 2010). JBLM disclosed a significant cumulative effect to transportation and 

social elements from the Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB) stationing and in the FEIS for the Fort Lewis 

Army Growth and Force Structure Realignment. FEIS / ROD (US Army Environmental Command 2011) 

and references the Grow the Army FEIS. The Point Defiance Bypass is listed as one of the “multiple 

long-term capital improvements that are being planned in the region that will accommodate the increase 

in traffic” (US Army Environmental Command 2011).29 

 

29 The FEIS for the Fort Lewis Army Growth and Force Structure Realignment adequately assesses the potential environmental 

and socioeconomic consequences associated with implementing, at Fort Lewis and the Yakima Training Center (YTC) 1, the 

December 2007 (updated in June 2010) ROD for the Final Programmatic EIS for Army Growth and Force Structure 

Realignment (also known as “Grow The Army”). The FEIS was issued in July 2010 and the ROD issued in February 2011. The 

action consists of several components including stationing, construction, and training. The FEIS analyzed the environmental and
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐70	 Environmental	Assessment	

In addition, FRA and WSDOT examined the recent activities posted on the state SEPA Register to get a 

sense for current and near future projects (Table 18) (Ecology 2012). While this is not an exhaustive list, 

it is helpful to see the general types of private and public developments in the area. 

 

socioeconomic impacts of stationing approximately 5,700 additional soldiers, and their families at Fort Lewis. This includes 

approximately: 1,900 soldiers; 1,000 Combat Service Support (CSS) soldiers; and, 2,800 soldiers for a medium CAB. 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐71	

Table 18: Recent Development Proposals in Project Area

Residential Development Jurisdiction

Subdivide 7 acres into 33 single family residential lots – 11604 Interlaaken Drive Southwest Lakewood 

Creekside Village – construct 14 buildings to create 160 multifamily dwelling units, parking, 

recreation and park facility on 12.8 acre site – North of Sequalitchew Creek west of Center 

Drive 

DuPont 

Commercial/Nonresidential Development

Olympic Moving and Storage – 7.17 Acre, 7010 150th Southwest Lakewood 

Kenworth Truck Dealership – 12507 Pacific Highway Lakewood 

Reddy Ice – demolish storage building and construct 14,000 sf ice warehouse and 

distribution facility – 9635 32nd Avenue 

Lakewood 

Boo Han International Village – 100,000 sf with 3-story multitenant retail facility – 9122 South 

Tacoma Way and South Steilacoom Blvd. 

Lakewood 

McDonald’s – construct 3,900 sf drive-through restaurant – 15004 Union Avenue Tillicum Lakewood 

DuPont Learning Center – 9,275 sf single story building and 42 stall parking lot on 1.16 

acres site, McNeil Street 

DuPont 

CalPortland North Parcel Mining Request – mine 142 acre parcel of existing mineral 

resource site – Sec 14, 15, 22 T19N, R1E 

DuPont 

Port of Tacoma Industrial Area – extend rail line and install new 6-car facility with associated 

private road and stormwater facilities – 3001 Marshal Avenue, Port Industrial District 

Tacoma 

Demolish 104 residential units and construct 140 residential units and community center with 

parking – 1800 Block South G Street and 2500 Block South G (downtown north of glass 

museum) 

Tacoma 

Construct 108,00 sf 4-story parking garage – 1202 Martin Luther King Jr Way (downtown 

north of glass museum) 

Tacoma 

Port of Tacoma Industrial Area – construct container terminal and associated widening of 

Blair Waterway and Puyallup Tribe-owned site – 3320 Lincoln Avenue, Port Industrial District 

Tacoma 

Install two sugar storage tanks (74,879-gallon capacity) at manufacturing facility – 115 East 

27th Street (near I-5/705 I/C) 

Tacoma 

Construct new Clover Park Elementary School – 1901 Lakewood Drive Lakewood 

4.16.2.2 Cumulative Effects Findings		

Consistent with the Joint Guidance (WSDOT 2008) and CEQ guidance (1997; 2005), FRA and WSDOT 

did not consider cumulative effects on resources that were not directly affected by the Project. 

Considering that the Build Alternative would have no effect on air quality, geology and soils, water 

resources, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and cultural resources, it would not contribute to a cumulative 

effect on these resources. 

As described in other sections of this EA, there is a potential for minor effects of the Build Alternative on 

noise and vibration, vegetation, hazardous materials, visual quality, land use, energy, public services and 

utilities, and energy. Therefore, FRA and WSDOT considered the potential for cumulative impacts 

resulting from the Project for these resources. A discussion of the potential cumulative impacts for each 

resource area is included below. The analysis concluded that that the Project is not anticipated to result in 

significant cumulative impacts. 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐72	 Environmental	Assessment	

Noise and Vibration. At sensitive locations north of Lakewood Station, moderate increases in noise 

would likely result from a combination of future Sound Transit operations and project-related Amtrak 

operations. FRA and WSDOT found that the Project’s contribution to noise in the area would not lead to 

a significant cumulative effect. 

Vibration effects from the Project were also considered in combination with other reasonably foreseeable 

actions, which for this rail corridor, includes the extension of the Sound Transit Sounder service in 

October 2012, plus the continuing Tacoma Rail service and occasional BNSF freight deliveries. FRA and 

WSDOT found that the Project’s vibration minimization measures are adequate to ensure no contribution 

to an adverse cumulative effect. 

Hazardous Materials. The potential for exposure to hazardous materials is generally a construction 

effect. The Project is not expected to result in a discharge of hazardous materials. If any inadvertent 

discharges occur, these would be contained and adverse effects avoided. In general, development projects 

improve conditions. Therefore, this Project is not likely to contribute to a cumulative environmental effect 

from hazardous materials releases. 

Visual Quality. The Project is located within an existing rail corridor and urbanized area; visual elements 

that have been and continue to be present in the area are primarily related to transportation, commercial 

and industrial land uses. The Project adds trains in a rail corridor that is currently used by other trains and 

would be used by more trains in the future. In the context of the existing environment and anticipated 

future rail operations, the visual elements of the Project would not contribute to a cumulative visual 

impact because it would not change the visual quality of the area. 

Vegetation. The Project has a minor, short-term construction effect on the vegetation along the rail rightof-way which would not lead to long-term impacts. FRA and WSDOT considered the Project’s 

minimization measures for effects to vegetation in combination with other current and future projects that 

provide habitat improvements such as the Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, environmental projects on 

JBLM, and local agencies’ critical area ordinances. FRA and WSDOT found that the Project’s vegetation 

measures are adequate to ensure no contribution to an adverse cumulative effect. 

Land Use. The Project would not affect land use or induce growth and development in the region. While 

noted under potential indirect effects, redevelopment around Freighthouse Square could occur and would 

be consistent with land use plans and policies for that area. The land is highly urbanized in the project 

corridor. The Project would not contribute to a cumulative effect on land use because its direct and 

indirect effects are negligible relative to the overall development in the region. 

Energy. The long-term energy use associated with the Project would be reduced from current conditions. 

Thus, there would be a beneficial cumulative effect to energy from the Project. 

Public Services, Utilities, and Safety. According to FRA and WSDOT analysis, there would be a slight 

beneficial cumulative effect throughout the project corridor since the improvements that would be made 

to the intersection signals would not otherwise occur for both the opening year of the Project and the 

horizon year of 2030. 

Transportation. Future planned transportation projects that could also affect traffic conditions in the 

study area were considered for the cumulative effects analysis. These projects include: the Cross-Base 

Highway (ROD issued by FHWA in 2004), Berkeley Street Freedom Bridge Improvements (funded; 

under construction), the Relocation of Camp Murray Gate (funded; under construction) and the projects 

listed above in Table 17. The reasonably foreseeable future projects would improve traffic conditions in 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	4‐73	

the study area. Therefore, the Build Alternative, when considered with the reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, would not result in significant cumulative effects on transportation. 

Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice. FRA and WSDOT considered the Project’s anticipated 

direct and indirect effects on social elements including environmental justice populations to evaluate 

whether the project contributes to any adverse cumulative effects. For most of the social elements 

(community character & cohesion, relocation/disruption, environmental justice), FRA and WSDOT found 

no contributions to cumulative effects. 

Connectivity in the study area north of Bridgeport Way Southwest would be unchanged by the Project 

and any other reasonably foreseeable future action; Sound Transit has already installed wayside horns that 

reduce train noise in all communities between Tacoma and Lakewood. South of Bridgeport Way 

Southwest, construction of the Cross-Base Highway and moving the Camp Murray main gate would 

improve connectivity by relieving congestion. Improvements as part of the Camp Murray Gate Relocation 

would divert traffic away from the Berkeley Street Southwest interchange to the North Thorne Lane 

Southwest interchange thus alleviating congestion at Berkeley Street Southwest. In conjunction with the 

Project’s intersection and signaling improvements, the result would be a slight beneficial contribution to 

the cumulative effect on community connectivity. 

The Tillicum, Woodbrook, and Nyanza neighborhoods have a long history of isolation due to the 

geographic and land use patterns around them. Neighborhood areas lack walkways and bike paths except 

for the travel lane and there are few entry/exit points to the neighborhood areas. Occasional, illegal 

pedestrian use of the railroad tracks as a trail is a safety concern. The future projects to improve mobility 

in the area (i.e., SR-704 and improvements around the military installations) would not improve 

connectivity within neighborhoods, but may enhance connectivity between neighborhoods. The lack of 

connecting streets and nonmotorized pathways in the Tillicum, Woodbrook, and Nyanza neighborhoods, 

combined with increased train activity with the Project, would result in a minor contribution to the 

isolation associated with the cumulative effects of past and present land use and transportation patterns in 

these areas. 

Consistent with NEPA guidance,30 FRA and WSDOT reviewed past project proposals to see where 

similar concerns have been addressed. For example, measures to improve local mobility and nonmotorized access are discussed in the JBLM Growth Coordination Plan, and several other local and 

regional planning efforts. The Cross-Base Highway (State Route 704) environmental documents contain 

possible measures to improve bicycle and pedestrian mobility in this area. Federal, state, and local entities 

are engaged in efforts to improve transportation modes including non-motorized access through the area. 

Climate Change. The Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor EA (WSDOT 2009) includes a discussion of 

greenhouse gases and climate change. Since 2008, FRA and WSDOT has advised its project teams 

preparing documents in compliance with the national and state policy acts (NEPA and SEPA) to consider 

the anticipated changes in local and regional conditions due that may affect the project. The department 

developed internal guidance to assist project teams in using available scientific data, and provided 

template language for inclusion in the cumulative effects discussions. Refer to: Guidance for Project 

Level Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change Evaluations (WSDOT 2012c). Accordingly, FRA and 

WSDOT considered the results of WSDOT’s recent vulnerability assessment (WSDOT 2011b) in 

assessing potential cumulative effects on the Project. 

The results of WSDOT’s recent vulnerability assessment (WSDOT 2011b) show the section of I-5 along 

the Project to be of low vulnerability to climate-related threats. WSDOT assessment was conducted on 

 

30 CEQ 1997 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	4‐74	 Environmental	Assessment	

state-owned transportation infrastructure, therefore did not include the current route along BNSF-owned 

railway. WSDOT is coordinating with Sound Transit on a vulnerability assessment of all Sound Transit 

facilities which will be complete in spring 2013. The Project corridor appears resilient to future climaterelated effects (WSDOT 2012d). 

4.16.2.3 Minimization Measures –Cumulative Effects

No adverse cumulative effects would occur as part of the Build Alternative; therefore, no minimization 

measures are proposed. 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	5‐1	

5.0 COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION

Agency coordination and public involvement for the Project were conducted and are summarized in the 

following sections. Appendix R contains the details of agency correspondence. 

5.1 Public Involvement		

Appropriate coordination of outreach with the public, community organizations, stakeholders, and other 

interested parties is critical to the successful adoption and implementation of the Point Defiance Bypass 

Environmental Assessment. Opportunities for public involvement on the Project begin with the scoping 

process and other outreach efforts before a decision concerning the Project is made. Table 19 identifies 

the briefings and public outreach efforts conducted for the Project between spring 2010 and summer 

2012. Materials provided at these events and briefings included electronic PowerPoint presentations, 

Project maps, photos and videos, fact sheets and illustrated Project timelines. 

Table 19. Summary of Public Involvement Activities		

Meeting

Date Audience Topic Discussed

08-06-2012 Joint Legislative staff Briefing – Street tour of the project and update on EA status. 

07-18-2012 South Tacoma Neighborhood Public outreach – status report and overview of study areas. 

03-21-2012 South Tacoma Neighborhood 

Council 

Public outreach – general overview and status report. 

11-29-2011 Gyro Club of Tacoma Public outreach – general overview and status report. 

09-22-2011 Broadway Tacoma Farmers 

Market 

Public outreach – general project information. 

09-20-2011 Tacoma City Council Briefing – update on the status of the EA. 

09-11-2011 South Tacoma Farmers Market Public outreach – general project information. 

09-01-2011 Broadway Tacoma Farmers 

Market 

Public outreach – general project information. 

08-31-2011 Alternatives Open House Public outreach – update on preferred route milestone and current 

progress. 

08-25-2011 Broadway Tacoma Farmers 

Market 

Public outreach – general project information. 

08-23-2011 DuPont City Council Briefing – update on the status of the EA. 

08-21-2011 South Tacoma Farmers Market Public outreach – general project information. 

08-16-2011 Pierce County Council Briefing – update on the status of the EA. 

08-15-2011 Lakewood City Council Briefing – update on the status of the EA. 

08-14-2011 South Tacoma Farmers Market Public outreach – general project information. 

03-29-2011 Lakewood Pacific 

Neighborhood 

Public outreach – update on the status of the EA. 

03-02-2011 Pierce County Building and 

Construction Trades Council 

Public outreach – discussion of types of work that will be available to 

contractors. 

03-01-2011 Steilacoom Town Council Briefing – general project information. 

02-09-2011 Debra Entenman, Rep. Adam 

Smith’s office 

Briefing – general project information. 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	5‐2	 Environmental	Assessment	

Table 19. Summary of Public Involvement Activities		

Meeting

Date Audience Topic Discussed

02-02-2011 RAMP Public outreach – discussion on effects of Project to surrounding 

businesses. 

01-14-2011 Coffee with the Mayor Public outreach – update on the status of the EA. 

01-06-2011 Tillicum/Woodbrook 

Neighborhood Assoc. 

Public outreach – update on the status of the EA. 

01-04-2011 Tacoma City Council Briefing – update on the status of the EA. 

11-17-2010 Lakewood Planning Committee Briefing – update on the status of the EA. 

11-15-2010 Tillicum Community Public outreach – Open House featuring status update on the EA. 

11-04-2010 Tacoma Univ. District Public outreach – Open House partnering w/ Sound Transit featuring 

general project information on Point Defiance and D to M Street project. 

10-28-2010 Lakewood United Public outreach – update on the status of the EA. 

10-26-2010 DuPont City Council Briefing – update on the status of the EA. 

10-18-2010 Tillicum Citizens Advisory 

Committee 

Public outreach – general project information. 

09-30-2010 Rep. Tami Greene Briefing – general project information. 

09-20-2010 Lakewood City Council Briefing – update on the status of the EA. 

09-16-2010 Broadway Tacoma Farmers 

Market 

Public outreach – general project information. 

09-08-2010 KOMO Radio listeners Public outreach – general project information. 

08-19-2010 Sen. Mike Carrell Briefing – general project information. 

08-18-2010 Camp Murray, WSDOT Briefing – EA update and discussion on the Camp Murray Gate 

relocation. 

08-18-2010 South Tacoma Neighborhood 

Council 

Public outreach – general project information. 

08-17-2010 Claudia Thomas – Lakewood 

City Councilmember 

Briefing – general project information. 

08-03-2010 National Night Out Public outreach – general project information. 

08-03-2010 Sen. Murray’s staff Briefing – general project information. 

07-09-2010 Sen. Murray’s staff Briefing – general project information. 

06-22-2010 Rep. Dicks’ staff Briefing – update on the status of the EA. 

05-21-2010 Rep. Smith’s staff Briefing – update on the status of the EA. 

05-11-2010 JTC Rail Tour Briefing – Point Defiance Tour. 

04-28-2010 Port of Tacoma Briefing – Panel of transportation and industry leader discussion of 

supply chain challenges. 

04-15-2010 Gov. Gregoire’s 

communications staff 

Briefing – general project information. 

Other outreach efforts included a four-page project folio mailed in November 2007 to over 200 adjoining 

property owners and interested parties. Updated Project information is also available on the Project web 

site at <http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Rail/PNWRC_PtDefiance/>. 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	5‐3	

A two-page Project fact sheet was translated into four languages in the fall of 2012, including Spanish, 

Korean, Vietnamese, and Russian. Per the Clover Park School District’s annual report (page 3), the top 5 

student ethnicities as represented in student enrollment are: White; Hispanic; African American; Multiple 

ethnicities; Asian American. These ethnicity numbers align with 2010 census data within the project 

corridor as reported in the socioeconomic discipline report. School district data is a valid data source for 

the Project, as the district includes most of Lakewood and South Tacoma. 

The handout was translated to Spanish as Hispanics make up the largest non-white ethnicity. The handout 

was also translated to Korean and Vietnamese based on observations that these two languages are the 

primary non-English communication form for business and social signage (e.g., garage sale and ‘lost pet’ 

signs posted on utility poles) within the project corridor. The handout was translated to Russian based on 

Lakewood’s translated materials for the recent Tillicum sewer improvement project (Lakewood published 

those materials in English, Spanish, and Russian). Availability of translated material was also posted on 

the Project’s online website. 

The EA was issued by FRA and WSDOT for public review on October 9, 2012 for a period of 30 

calendar days (comment period closed on November 9, 2012). A total of 62 comments on the 

EA were received from individuals or agencies, including comments from one federal agency, 

two state agencies, one regional agency, and five local agencies. 

5.2 Agency Coordination		

To provide meaningful engagement and to maintain steady progress on the Project, key stakeholders and 

municipalities within the study area were asked to sign the Point Defiance Bypass Project Technical 

Advisory Group Operating Plan and be part of two advisory teams: a Technical Advisory Group and 

an Executive Advisory Team. The Technical Advisory Group provides technical review and feedback on 

the Point Defiance Bypass Project Environmental Assessment, and to submit recommendations for 

review by the Executive Advisory Team. The Executive Advisory Team meets regularly to review and 

comment on updates to transportation analyses and other environmental work produced by project staff 

and technical advisory team – specifically focusing on potential traffic effects. The Operating Plan is 

presented in Appendix R. The advisory team partners include: 

 Federal Railroad Administration 

 Washington State Department of 

Transportation 

 Federal Highway Administration 

 Sound Transit 

 City of Lakewood, WA 

 DuPont, WA 

 Pierce County, WA 

 City of Tacoma, WA 

 Joint Base Lewis-McChord 

 National Guard 

 Clover Park School District

WSDOT provides regular updates and receives input from the governor’s office, Washington State 

U.S. Senators and Representatives, and Washington legislators. Meetings with both the Technical 

Advisory Team and Executive Advisory Team have been held since 2010 (Table 20). 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	5‐4	 Environmental	Assessment	

Table 20. Summary of Advisory Team Meetings

Technical Advisory Team Meetings Executive Advisory Team Meetings

June 29, 2010 

July 15, 2010 

July 29, 2010 

August 12, 2010 

August 26, 2010 

September 23, 2010 

October 21, 2010 

January 20, 2011 

March 17, 2011 

May 19, 2011 

June 16, 2011 

October 18, 2011 

November 15, 2011 

January 19, 2012 

March 29, 2012 

June 29, 2010 

August 5, 2010 

September 9, 2010 

October 7, 2010 

November 4, 2010 

February 3, 2011 

April 7, 2011 

June 2, 2011 

July 7, 2011 

December 1, 2011 

January 9, 2012 

March 29, 2012 

In December 2011, FRA sent letters to the chairpersons of the Nisqually Tribe, Snoqualmie Nation, 

Puyallup Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe, and the Yakama Nation, initiating formal government-togovernment consultation and advising of the change in the Project’s termini. None of the tribes accepted 

the invitation to consult; however, several expressed interest in or support of the Project. 

In compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), FRA and WSDOT completed a 

biological evaluation to document potential Project effects to ESA-listed species and designated critical 

habitats. The assessment indicated that the Project would be constructed entirely with the existing rightof-way of the established rail corridor within a developed region with high ambient noise and human 

activity levels. The assessment concluded that the Project would have no effect on any federally-listed 

terrestrial species or any designated critical habitat, or on any federally-listed aquatic species or any 

Essential Fish Habitat under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as 

amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. FRA provided copies of this correspondence to the US 

Fish and Wildlife Service, the NMFS in July 2012. Concurrence from NMFS was received on August 23, 

2012. Consultation letters are presented in Appendix S. 

In compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, FRA and WSDOT submitted a 

no adverse effect determination letter to SHPO. Concurrence on the no adverse effect determination was 

received on September 26, 2012 from SHPO. The consultation letters are presented in Appendix S. 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	6‐1	

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

The following list of prepares includes those individuals that collaboratively prepared this EA for the 

FRA. 

Name/Title Affiliation Education

Years of

Experience

Buffington, Lori – Technical 

Editor 

HDR Business Administration studies, Portland Community 

College 

34 

Cleveland, Leandra – 

Environmental Scientist 

HDR Bachelor of Science, Environmental Sciences/Studies 13 

Gregory, James – 

Environmental Scientist 

HDR Bachelor of Science, Biological/Life Sciences 27 

Mattson, Larry – 

Environmental Manager 

WSDOT MS, Natural Resource Management; 

BA, Political Science 

18 

Metcalf, Josh – 

Transportation Engineer 

HDR Master of Engineering, Engineering Management; 

Bachelor of Civil Engineering 

12 

Ostrem, Meagan – 

Environmental Scientist 

HDR Bachelor of Science, Environmental Sciences/Studies 10 

Roalkvam, Carol Lee – 

Policy Branch Manager 

WSDOT Master of Arts, Environmental Studies/Political Science 19 

Snead, Carol – 

Environmental Scientist 

HDR Master of Science, Geological and Related Sciences 27 

Turano, Tony – Graphics HDR Associate of Arts, General Studies 17 

Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	7‐1	

7.0 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACM Asbestos-containing material 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

APE area of potential effect 

BMP best management practice 

BNSF Burlington Northern-Santa Fe 

BTU British thermal units 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CalTrans California Department of Transportation 

CAO Critical Areas Ordinance 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CH4 methane 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2e CO2 equivalents

Corps United States Army Corps of Engineers 

CSWPPP Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DAHP Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 

dBA A-weighted decibel 

DCE dichloroethylene 

DMC DuPont Municipal Code 

EA Environmental Assessment 

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology 

EFH essential fish habitat 

EJ environmental justice 

EO Executive Order 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FR Federal Register 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

FSC Federal Species of Concern 

FT Federally Threatened 

FTA Federal Transit Administration 

GHG greenhouse gas 

GRP General Reporting Protocol 

HRM Highway Runoff Manual 

HSIPR High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail 

I-5 Interstate 5 

JBLM Joint Base Lewis McChord 

LEP Limited English Proficiency 

LMC Lakewood Municipal Code 

LOS level of service 

LUST leaking underground storage tank 

LWCFA Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 

Mbtu one million British Thermal Units 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	7‐2	 Environmental	Assessment	

MP mile post 

mpg miles per gallon 

MSAT Mobile Source Air Toxics 

MTCA Model Toxics Control Act 

N2O Nitrous oxide 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOX nitrogen oxide 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

O3 ozone 

Pb lead 

PM particulate matter 

PM10 particles of 10 micrometers (microns) or less 

PM2.5 particles less than 2.5 micrometers (microns) in aerodynamic diameter 

PNWRC Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor 

RCFB Recreation and Conservation Funding Board

RCW Revised Code of Washington 

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

SCUP Shoreline Conditional Use Permit 

SEPA State Environmental Policy Act 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SM State Monitor 

SMA Shoreline Management Act 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SPCCP Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan 

SSDP Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 

TCE Trichloroethene 

TESC Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control 

TMC Tacoma Municipal Code 

TR Tacoma Rail 

USC United States Code 

USDOT United States Department of Transportation 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

VdB vibration velocity units 

VOC volatile organic compound 

WAC Washington Administrative Code 

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources 

WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area 

WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation 

§ Section 
Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	 February	2013	

Environmental	Assessment	 Page	8‐1	

8.0 REFERENCES

Brinson, Mark W. 

1993 A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands. Technical Report WRP-DE-4. Wetland Research 

Program, US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

1997 Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. 

2005 Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis. 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe 

1979 Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, D.C. 

Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology) 

2009 2008 Washington State’s Water Quality Assessment [303(d)] Query Tool. Available at: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2008/index.html. Last updated February 2009. Approved 

by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 29, 2009. 

2012 State Environmental Policy Act Register, accessed August 2012. 

Employment Security Department – Washington State (ESD-WA) 

 2011 Employment Security Department – Washington State. Accessed at 

http://www.workforceexplorer.com/ on August 31, 2011. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

1981 Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

2011 Guidance on Assessing Noise and Vibration Impacts. Available at: 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/253.shtml. Accessed September 2011. 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

2006 Transit noise and vibration impact assessment, final report. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. United States 

Code. 1969. National environmental policy act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321-4345. Washington, 

D.C. May 2006. 

General Reporting Protocol (GRP) 

2008 The Climate Registry, General Reporting Protocol, Version 1.1, May 2008. 

Hruby, T. 

2004 Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington – Revised. Washington State 

Department of Ecology Publication #04-06-025. 

News Tribune 

2011 thenewstribune.com. “Pierce County home sales skyrocket as prices fizzle in July”, published August 

4, 2011. Accessed at http://www.thenewstribune.com/ on September 1, 2011 

Null, W.S., G. Skinner, and W. Leonard 

2000 Wetland functions characterization tool for linear projects. Washington State Department of 

Transportation, Environmental Affairs Office. Olympia. 

Pierce County 

2011 Pierce County Assessor-Treasurer. 2011 Residential Revaluation Report. 2011. 

Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) 

2011 2010 – 2013 Transportation Improvement Program, accessed August 2012 

(http://psrc.org/transportation/tip/current). 
February	2013	 Point	Defiance	Bypass	Project	

Page	8‐2	 Environmental	Assessment	

RealtyTimes 

2011 RealtyTimes website for September 1, 2011. Accessed at 

http://www.co.pierce.wa.us/xml/abtus/ourorg/at/2011_reval_summary.pdf on September 1, 2011. 

Rudick, Roger 

2001 “Rail Access Can Enhance Property Values.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, California. December 

4, 2001. 

Transportation Research Board 

2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209. 

United States Army 

2010 South Sound Military and Communities Partnership. Joint Base Lewis McChord Growth Coordination 

Plan. December 2010. 

United States Army Environmental Command 

2011 Record of Decision for the Realignment, Growth and Stationing of Army Aviation Assets. 

United States Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, Environmental Laboratory, Department of the 

Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. 

United States Department of Transportation and Sound Transit (USDOT/ST) 

2002 Sound Transit Lakewood-to-Tacoma Commuter Rail and SR-512 Park-and-Ride Expansion 

NEPA/SEPA Final Environmental Impact Statement. May 2002. 

Van Galder, Sarah J., Angel Tomes, Edgar K. Huber, and Scott Thompson 

2012 Section 106 Survey Report Historic, Cultural, and Archaeological Resources/Discipline Report: 

Federal Railroad Administration–WSDOT Point Defiance Bypass Project Environmental Assessment. 

Statistical Research, WA. Prepared for the Washington State Department of Transportation. 

Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) 

2008 Joint Guidance on Preparing Cumulative Impact Analyses. 

2009 PNWRC Program Environmental Assessment. 

2010 D to 66th Street Operational Analysis Review; July 2010. 

2011a Service Development Plan – Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor Cascades High-Speed Rail Program; 

July 2011 draft. 

2011b Climate Impacts Vulnerability Assessment; November 2011. 

2012a Approved 2012 – 2015 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); January 2012. 

2012b WSDOT High Speed Rail Program website, accessed August 2012 

(http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Rail/Projects.htm). 

2012c Guidance for Project-Level Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change Evaluations. 

2012d Personal communication between Carol Lee Roalkvam, WSDOT and Lara Whitely Binder, Climate 

Impacts Group, August 2012. 
Appendices

The following appendices are available under separate cover: 

Appendix A: Alternatives Analysis 

Appendix B: Grade Separation Concept Evaluation 

Appendix C: Air Quality Discipline Report 

Appendix D: Air Quality Discipline Report Erratum 

Appendix E: Noise and Vibration Discipline Report 

Appendix F: Traffic and Transportation Discipline Report 

Appendix G: Railroad Crossing Traffic Effect Analysis at C and D Streets 

Appendix H: Geology and Soils Discipline Report 

Appendix I: Water Resources Discipline Report 

Appendix J: Wetlands Discipline Report 

Appendix K: Fish, Vegetation, and Wildlife Discipline Report 

Appendix L: Hazardous Materials Discipline Report 

Appendix M: Visual Quality Discipline Report 

Appendix N: Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice Discipline Report 

Appendix O: Land Use Discipline Report 

Appendix P: Public Services and Utilities Discipline Report 

Appendix Q: Energy Discipline Report 

Appendix R: Public Outreach Summary 

Appendix S: Agency Correspondence